Note: The following transcript was generated using AI and may contain inaccuracies.
Alhamdulillahi Rabbil Alameen, Wasalatu wasalamu ala Rasoolillahi sallallahu alayhi wasallam. Ustad Muhammad Ibn Hanbal, assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh. Wa alaikum assalam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh. Jazakallah khair once again for joining me on the HotSeat podcast. Wa alaikum, it's always a pleasure.
So as you know, it's a show where we usually discuss controversial topics within the religion of Islam. And this, like many that we've discussed before previously, is one that has particularly been on the minds of a lot of Muslims and non-Muslims for that matter of fact in the last few years. And that is related to the penal code of Islam, the Sharia law. And we want to find out today and answer the question: Is the Sharia barbaric?
So as I often do, I normally give you the opportunity to have your introduction. You can lay down some principles, some points that we can perhaps refer back to throughout the discussion. Over to you.
Alhamdulillahi Rabbil Alameen, Wasalatu wasalamu ala Abdullahi wa Rasoolih Nabiyyina Muhammad wa ala alihi wa sahbihi ajma'een.
It's really interesting that in that introduction, the way the term Sharia is used. So I want to start by just looking at this word Sharia, because I believe that the beginning of the problem here is actually the misunderstanding of the word Sharia and the misuse of the word Sharia.
Not to say that there aren't — I'm sure we're going to come across many valid points during our discussion that need to be discussed — but I believe the premise that we're beginning with, that the Sharia is this Islamic penal code — I think the word Sharia, we need to go right back.
So Allah Azzawajal said: "Likullin ja'alna minkum shir'atan wa minhaja" — To each of you, We prescribed a Sharia, a law and a method.
And Allah Azzawajal said: "Am lahum shurakā’ sharā‘ū lahum min ad-dīn mā lam ya’dhan bihi Allāh" — Do they have partners that have legislated for them from their religion, things which Allah has not given permission for?
In the Arabic language, the word Sharia is actually a watering place — a place of water. And it's a place where the water is open and apparent — not like a well where you have to dig right down and find it — but, say like the bank of a river.
And when you go down to the bank of the river and you sort of descend down with your animals and you sit by the bank of the river and your animals drink from the water — that's what the word Sharia means in the Arabic language.
So it is a word that is actually very positive in Arabic. And some of the ulema, they mentioned the link between the linguistic and between the application of Sharia as a system of law — a comprehensive system of law — is that just like water is an essential element for life, so the law of Allah Azzawajal and the rules and regulations that we live by are essential for our eternal life.
So it's a path that leads you to eternal life. It's a path that leads you to eternal happiness. That's the concept of the word Sharia.
The word itself is not a negative, harsh word. There are words like that — we talk about jinayat, you know, punishments. And we talk about hudud, you know, prescribed penalties. The word hadd is a very sharp, hard, rough word, you know. But the word Sharia is a very soft, beautiful word that talks about — you know — you get this image of, you know, sitting by the lake with your animals drinking from the water. This is what the word Sharia means.
And the word Sharia in Islam was used in three ways: It was used for the religion as a whole — the whole religion. I mean, the whole of Islam would be called Sharia. Because what is the feature of the whole of Islam?
That Allah is the one who revealed it. Allah is the one who legislated it.
And that's why we don't say about the Prophet ﷺ that he is Sharia, that he's the legislator. Actually, the Prophet ﷺ is Mubaligh — his job is to convey the legislation from Allah.
But Allah is the legislator. And everything that Allah legislated — including birr al-walidayn — is Sharia. Being good to your parents. Being kind to your neighbours. Being just. Being fair. Saying a good word to people. Saying nice things to people.
All of this is Sharia — the whole of the Sharia — from what Allah legislated for us to follow. It's a very comprehensive — a comprehensive term.
The second way they use the word Sharia is Aqeedah. Okay? Like Al-Imam Al-Ajurri رحمه الله تعالى in Kitab al-Sharia, he used the word Sharia to refer to your beliefs. That was well known as a terminology.
Many of the scholars, they referred to beliefs as Sharia. And some of them referred to the furu' fiqhiyyah — the subsidiary matters of fiqh, legislative matters like how to pray, how to fast, how to marry — you know, all of these matters — they referred to them as Sharia.
But nobody — from the scholars of Islam, to the best of my knowledge that I have found — has ever used the word Sharia to refer to punishments exclusively.
It just wasn't used. This is something that Western newspapers — people like that — took on. They put it in this thing, this "Islamic Sharia, Sharia law".
And in reality, this idea of Sharia either refers to the whole religion, or it refers to all of the ahkam, or it refers to a person's belief. And it's not necessarily a negative word.
Instead, what the scholars referred to — in terms of the prescribed punishments or penalties or the sort of laws of things like retribution — they refer to it either as al-hudud, which are prescribed punishments.
And the word had is something which is delimited — it's been fixed, right? It's been set by Allah — so the set punishments that Allah has set.
And some of them refer to it as al-jinayat — the law of punishments and penalties and things like that.
Now, I also want to point out — which a lot of people probably don’t realize — is how small the penalties and punishments actually are in terms of the amount of content Islam revealed — ayat, hadith, content within the books of fiqh.
The penalties and punishments of Islam are a few pages — in comparison to huge amounts about how to pray, about how to fast.
So I want people to put it in context. I don’t think we should run away from — and I don't want to run away — so I came to a hot seat, you know — we don’t want to run away from discussing the penalties and punishments in Islam.
But for someone to take something which is a tiny part of Islam and to make the whole of Islam.
The only thing Muslims do is cut off people’s hands and heads. That is why Islam was sent. Then that is really a gross misrepresentation of the religion of Islam and what Islam is about.
I also wanted to start by talking about how Allah ʿAzza wa Jall sent the Messenger Muhammad ﷺ — as He said:
وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ إِلَّا رَحْمَةً لِّلْعَالَمِينَ “We sent you as a mercy for mankind.”
Islam was not sent to punish people. And that was not the maqāṣid of Islam. The purpose of Islam was not to punish people.
Allah ʿAzza wa Jall — when His punishment comes — like the punishment of ʿĀd, and Thamūd, and Firʿawn, and the punishment of the people who came before — that punishment, when it comes, there is nobody getting out. Nobody comes out of that alive. Nobody comes out of that.
You know, the punishment of Allah ʿAzza wa Jall is severe when it comes. Islam was not sent to punish people. Islam was not sent to torture people. Islam was sent to bring mercy to people.
And I think it's really important to look at what Islam — generally, from an overview — came with. It came to protect the people's religion.
And when we say to protect the people's religion — and to preserve at-Tawḥīd, the Oneness of Allah — to preserve and protect people's religion, to protect people’s lives, to protect people’s sanity and intellect, to protect people’s health, and to protect people’s wealth, and to protect people’s honor — that's what Islam came with.
And that necessitates that there are punishments.
And I think that this idea that we shouldn't punish anyone for anything is a wholly false idea, which leads to a loss of life, it leads to a loss of safety, it leads to a loss of people’s religion, and it causes great problems.
There has to be — there have to be — deterrents. There have to be punishments.
And I think also, when we talk about worldly punishments, you have to also think that the punishment of Allah — I mean, the worldly punishments, no matter what level they reach, they will not reach the punishment of Allah ﷻ Yawm al-Qiyāmah.
And that is something that all Muslims — we agree upon unanimously. And indeed, many, many other religions — Christianity, Judaism, etc. — also agree about the severity of the punishment of Allah ʿAzza wa Jall.
And the fact that Allah ʿAzza wa Jall said: إِنَّ بَطْشَ رَبِّكَ لَشَدِيدٌ “The punishment of your Lord is severe.”
And so, whatever happened from the worldly punishments, you have to put that in the context of the fact that in the Hereafter, the situation will be far worse.
So in terms of bringing things that stop people from falling into the greater punishment, by giving them deterrents — that disincentivize them from going into things that would lead them to that greater punishment — is, in itself, a raḥmah.
And for example, the statement of Allah ʿAzza wa Jall:
وَلَكُمْ فِي الْقِصَاصِ حَيَاةٌ يَا أُولِي الْأَلْبَابِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَتَّقُونَ “You have in the law of qiṣāṣ (retribution) — you have life, O people of understanding, so that you may become righteous.”
That's really — you know, it's a really profound statement: that we save people's lives through qiṣāṣ. That's what the ayah says. People's lives are saved through qiṣāṣ.
Qisās — being retribution. Retribution: a life for a life. How can you have a life for a life and save people’s lives?
There are a number of ways — and we can get into the details of it later — but I just wanted to give that sort of overview. That for example, the fact that this — as a deterrent — stops people from committing crimes, and so it saves the lives of those people who would have been victims, and the lives of those people who would have had punishments carried out upon them.
So in that sense — and in the sense of the fact that it preserves the safety and security of the community, and the life of the community in general, and the life of the Hereafter as well — so I think all of those things need to be taken into account.
From the things that I want to begin with in the introduction is: I really want to emphasize that for us as Muslims, our job is to submit to what Allah ʿAzza wa Jall has legislated.
There are times when we fully appreciate — or we feel that we fully appreciate, I think it’s probably incorrect to say we fully appreciate — but we have a reasonable appreciation of why we've been asked to do something.
And there are times where there may be people who are watching — some of us understand it, and some of us don’t.
And it’s interesting — in the ayah I mentioned about qisās — Allah ʿAzza wa Jall said: “People of intellect.” So that shows you that there are going to be people who understand that qisās saves lives, and there are going to be people who don’t understand.
But ultimately, as Allah ʿAzza wa Jall said:
فَلَا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ لَا يَجِدُوا فِي أَنفُسِهِمْ حَرَجًا مِّمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا
“By your Lord, they do not believe until they make you the judge between them in that which they differ over, and then they do not find in themselves any discomfort — any ḥaraj — in what you have ruled for them, and they submit with complete submission.” [Surah an-Nisā’, 4:65]
Now at this point, it’s interesting. Normally — I don’t think I’ve ever done this on the Hot Seat — I typically don’t quote non-Muslim sources, because my job is to present the Islamic side.
But I think in this, there’s something that I really wanted to quote to you from non-Muslim sources.
I wanted to talk about how non-Muslims typically — generally — see the concept of punishment. And this is something — when I did Law at A-Level — we looked at: what is the purpose of punishment? And they call it “the purposes of sentencing.” Why do countries, or why do legal systems, punish people?
And I just thought it’s interesting to quote, because it’s interesting to think about that in the light of Islam — not as an evidence, because it’s not an Islamic statement — but just to give some context as to typically why punishments are carried out.
So the primary purposes of punishment are deterrence — both general and specific. So that is: deterring the individual from committing the crime again, and deterring others from committing that crime.
Followed by retribution — in other words, payback on behalf of the victim, on behalf of those people who have been affected.
They said that every punishment in every legal system is based upon this. These two are unanimous in all legal systems: that there is deterrence and there is retribution.
Then consideration is given to incapacitation — stopping the person from being able to do it — rehabilitation — facilitating the person to rehabilitate — and restitution — in other words, giving back to the victim what was taken, depending on the crime.
But those last three are not features of every punishment in every legal system. They are things that — some crimes — there is consideration for incapacitating the person. In some, there is more of an effort to rehabilitate. In some, there is restitution. In some, there isn’t restitution.
But all punishments are based around deterrence — of the individual and of the society — and retribution.
So that’s... I would argue that only Islamic law really achieves this in a fair and just way. In reality, I believe that modern laws — in systems that we have outside of Islam — have generally failed to do these things, broadly speaking.
They fail to deter people from committing crimes, broadly speaking. It’s generally the case that the punishments are getting lighter and lighter, and the amount of incarceration and things like that is increasing.
People are not being deterred from committing crimes — neither as individuals nor as a society — because the punishment just isn’t enough to deter people from doing it.
There is not appropriate retribution, typically. And that’s why we see people committing crimes that are horrific crimes, and getting ten years in jail, for which they serve five.
Right, yeah. You know, that is... you know, there isn’t — that is not appropriate retribution. It’s not appropriate that somebody takes someone’s life, or somebody severely harms another person — and we’re talking about some of the most horrific crimes — and then literally has five years of relative comfort, after which they walk out free, and it’s said: that is retribution for what they have done.
I think that, you know, that is something that — typically now in modern legal systems — is a complete failure, to be honest.
It doesn’t incapacitate criminals, typically. It doesn’t provide a means to rehabilitation.
And in Islam, I want to think about rehabilitation not in the dunya, but also in the ākhirah. How do I stand in front of Allah having committed this crime? How do I purify myself? And how do I come before Allah and make up for what I have done?
Nor is there appropriate restitution typically, for — you know — for these kinds of crimes.
And then add to that, that typically we spend — as, let’s say, taxpayers in the West — we spend billions and billions of pounds pampering these criminals. Typically, a criminal in jail in the UK costs £45,000 — that is — what is that? About $60,000 or something like that — every single year.
So you have people who have taken the lives of other people — sometimes children — in horrific ways, who have committed crimes that — to be honest, you can’t... if it wasn’t for the retribution in the Hereafter — you would say there is nothing we can do to them in this dunya. Whatever torture you can think of would not be equal to the crime that they did.
And yet, we now pay £45,000 a year to pamper those people, and look after them and take care of them, when their victims are left with nothing.
So to be honest, I genuinely believe that the systems that are there in the West are not serving either the people who committed the crimes — let alone the victims — in terms of giving them a means to true rehabilitation and reconciliation, and so on, in terms of the ākhirah as well as the worldly life.
They aren’t deterring people from committing crimes. They aren’t providing suitable retribution. And ultimately, they are costing — on top of that — loads and loads of money.
And you just have to look at the state of prisons today, and all the mental health issues, the people who are — you know — suffering in there, who — to be honest — really, you know...
You see — actually even just looking at the historical pattern from their system — that things have got worse as they have lightened these punishments, not better. And I believe that is a fairly general trend. There isn’t a lot — if you look in the world today — where you can find exceptions to that trend, typically.
So I believe that’s really important. I’m not going to mention too many more things.
Okay. Um... Sorry, carry on.
Now, let’s get into a bit more discussion. I think some people who might be watching this might think that just the failure of one system — for example, the system that the West generally adopt — does not necessarily indicate that the other system is a successful one.
I actually agree with that initially. I agree with that, as we need to investigate.
Yes.
But I do believe that the people — that people shouldn’t be throwing stones from glass houses. You know, you have people in Western systems where, to be honest, the system is an utter and total failure in every regard.
It isn’t serving anybody. It’s not serving the public. It’s not serving the victims. It’s not helping people to stop committing crimes.
And then those people stand in their glass houses, throwing stones and saying, “Your Sharīʿah is barbaric.”
Those people also say that these are man-made laws. “We’re going to get there. We’re taking our time. We’re improving every century, every decade.
But your laws are divine — from God, from Allah. Surely that should be more criticized.”
And that’s what we’re going to prove — in short, like this Hot Seat episode — that these laws are the ones that are suitable.
And that it’s actually this law — the divine law — that would actually bring about those objectives that those non-Muslims have quoted: being deterrence, both general and specific, retribution, rehabilitation — both in this world and the ākhirah — and restitution, and being incapacitated, and so on.
That those would actually come from the religion of Islam.
I would also say, on the issue of “our system will get better,” I would say that sadly, the trend is that the system is not getting better. It’s actually — it’s actually getting worse.
And there are reasons why that system has gotten worse over time, and I understand that. And I believe there are unique features of the Islamic legal system which do not apply in the same way.
So for example — and I don't want to get too much into details, I'll share a few introductions — but for example, when it comes to capital punishment, people — the biggest reason people oppose capital punishment, and I'm not saying this is the only reason, but the reason that comes at the top of the surveys — is miscarriage of justice.
So if we can prove that Islam puts in a system that is strong enough to prevent miscarriage of justice, that argument no longer stands as being a significant reason to abolish capital punishment.
What you mean by miscarriage of justice — someone who is falsely accused and then falsely... and ends up losing their life for something that they didn't do.
And that is usually the number one — in just surveys, general — just look at surveys. People have said — who oppose capital punishment — usually the reason why is not an ideological reason that we shouldn’t be taking people’s lives, but typically it is: "What if there’s a miscarriage of justice?"
So that is something that I believe Islam provides a very strong answer to, which means that the reasoning is not the same.
But if you look at the general trend — the general trend across the world is generally the lightening of punishments, the lessening of punishments, and sadly, an increase in rates of crime.
I mean, my grandmother tells me — or told me — about times when people used to leave the door open in the UK. You know, you used to leave your front door open. And now, people have three — you know, bolt the door three times, and the alarm and CCTV cameras, and you know, what have you.
It hasn’t improved. It’s actually gotten worse, despite the fact that their legal system and criminal justice system is supposedly improving.
So my argument would be: Your system is improving, and your situation is getting worse. Something isn’t quite right in that regard.
So I just wanted to mention a few points. I think Allah Subḥānahu wa Taʿālā’s ruling — we have to understand that there is no ruling, as we’re told in Islam, there is no ruling better than the ruling of Allah.
Allah ʿAzza wa Jal said: أَفَحُكْمَ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ يَبْغُونَ "Is it the ruling of the pre-Islamic times that they want?"
وَمَنْ أَحْسَنُ مِنَ اللَّهِ حُكْمًا لِّقَوْمٍ يُوقِنُونَ "Who is better than Allah in ruling, in law, for a people who have certainty?"
The Islamic system is a holistic system. You know, I think when you just focus on only the aspect of punishments, you can skew the picture.
And I do think it’s a valid topic. I'm pleased that you’ve decided to raise this topic on the Hot Seat, because it is a valid topic.
But also, to make that Islam — is unfair on the religion of Islam. Islam needs to be seen as a whole, not as focusing on one particular aspect.
Because that does give you a misunderstanding of the religion of Islam. It doesn't give you the balance of all the things that Islam brings.
Islam is a religion for all people, all places, and all times. It is a religion that works everywhere in the world.
And a lot of times, when people criticize things, they do tend to look with very, very narrow tunnel vision at what they believe to be their specific situation. And I think it's important that people understand that Islamic law is for everyone, everywhere — including their specific situation.
And I think that that is something that people often neglect, to be honest. They often neglect.
For example, if you live in a society that is relatively, shall we say, safe, or a relatively advanced society in terms of what people consider to be things like criminal justice and things like that — people tend to look at that, and then they tend to make criticisms which, to be honest, if they were to go a few hundred miles in any one direction, they would be able to clearly see the wisdom behind some of the things that are said.
But the point I was trying to make by saying “including their society” is that you might have people who, like you said, in their society, it might not match — It might not— No, I do believe it matches.
I don't believe it's the case that it doesn't match. I believe it's an issue of ḥikmah — wisdom. Because we believe there is no one better than Allah in ḥukm — there is no one better than Allah in His law. And that that law is wise in that country.
But sometimes, to see the wisdom of that... You know, for example, there are people who make very— you know, they climb on the ivory tower, and they make very, very sort of judgmental pronouncements based on a very limited set of life experiences.
And, you know, for example, that person has not been a victim of some of these crimes, for example. Yeah. And they make pronouncements about things that, to be honest, if they were to have a broader range of life experiences and to see life outside of the bubble they're in...
Sometimes you would say to them that — actually, you know, shall we go to some of the victims of these crimes and ask them about justice?
You know, you have to see — what I mean is you have to open your eyes to the wider world.
Yeah, and that's— I believe that is something to be mentioned, which is important. I believe it's important, and I have mentioned already, just to emphasize the issue of looking at the Hereafter as well as the worldly life — both in terms of being saved from punishment in the Hereafter, and the issue of rehabilitation in terms of the Ākhirah, not just in terms of the Dunyā.
In terms of being forgiven by Allah, being entered into Jannah, and having your sins wiped out — that is of value.
And a lot of—again, I saw people who criticized a lot of things in the Islamic legal system, and they did so from an atheist perspective — that there is nothing in the Hereafter. And I believe that that skews your judgment about these issues.
So it's important to remember that Islam doesn't just look at the Dunyā. It's not just about your life here. It's also about— I mean, we talk about people who confessed to crimes and had punishments carried out, while the Prophet ﷺ discouraged them from that, and they still continued to confess.
What made that person wish to confess? And it is the fact that: "I want rehabilitation in the Hereafter."
Now that's not to say that Islam encourages that. We're going to talk about that in shā’ Allāh in more detail. But just to understand that people didn't see— the people living through that— they weren't just looking at what's going to happen today and tomorrow and next week. They were looking at: "What am I going to be like when I stand in front of Allah on the Day of Judgment?"
I think it's really important to mention two or three core principles. I think first of all, when we talk about punishments, that punishments are the right of the Sulṭān — they are the right of the person in authority. Islam doesn't advocate vigilantism. It doesn't advocate people taking the law into their own hands. And this only creates chaos.
In reality, it has to be done through the framework of authority. And we can talk about that in more detail — I'm sure we're going to come to that.
I think we will come to that. But I just wanted to establish that— I wanted to set that out as a principle for people who might catch the beginning of the video, perhaps.
That it's really important to understand that the issue of punishments— this is from the matters which are from the ḥuqūq of the Sulṭān — the right of the Sulṭān to carry them out.
They're from their responsibility — the mas’ūliyyah of the Sulṭān, the one who is in authority. And that's important.
And finally, this golden principle. And this principle, I think— if Islam only came with this principle in ḥudūd, I think that we could have solved so many problems with people's— you know, the criminal systems and criminal justice systems— just with this one thing:
That severe prescribed punishments are not carried out in the case where there is any doubt over what happened — when there is any shubha over what happened.
And I will give an example, and I'm sure we'll come to more examples later — but let's say, for example, a person is convicted of theft, and they are going to have a punishment carried out upon them, the prescribed punishment for theft.
However, in their mind — in their eyes.
They don't believe that what they did was theft. The court has ruled what you did was theft. But he said, “I believe that I had a debt to this person. This person had a debt— they owed me money— there was a debt between us, and I only took what was mine already.”
That does not open the door to anyone just to claim that excuse. No doubt the Sharīʿah has to put in some rules and regulations.
Now that doesn't mean they're not punished. But the prescribed punishments— the ones you're going to get out now and take out of your bag and start throwing at me now— those prescribed punishments are not carried out when there is doubt.
Let's take for example zinā. The court rules this person committed zinā, but he says, “I was under the understanding that I was— I believed that this was a valid marriage.” That was their understanding.
Now, that doesn't mean they might not be punished. But the prescribed punishments are not carried out when there is doubt. That high level of punishment is not carried out when there are shubuhāt— there are questions over it, or concerns over it. And the court has to examine those things.
So a person might be found guilty of a crime, but might not have the punishment carried out because it doesn't reach the standard of that punishment being carried out.
And instead, we go back to taʿzīr, which is the concept we're going to talk about a lot.
Taʿzīr is the issue of what you would call— it's the issue of punishments and penalties which are not prescribed specifically by Allah or by the Prophet ﷺ within the Qur'an and the Sunnah, but instead, the judge makes a discretionary decision.
We call it discretionary punishments. So for example, imprisonment for a year or a fine. And the fines—the scholars differ over it, whether fines can be discretionary punishments or not.
But this issue of discretionary punishment could still be carried out. This could be said, “Okay, you have a fine of this, and you have to go to jail for this many years.” That's a discretionary punishment.
But the punishments that are the headline punishments in Islam are not carried out when there are doubts, confusion, or misunderstandings present within the case.
Okay, let's go into some of those headline punishments. And I think there are probably two extremes that people fall into. One, as you've outlined in the introduction, is saying that the Sharīʿah is all about these kinds of punishments and nothing else, and it is restricted to that.
And another extreme on the other end is to avoid that completely, and let's not even talk about them and pretend that they don't exist.
You're trying to say that you're representing a middle path here— that acknowledges their existence but within a framework, a wider framework that also needs to be acknowledged.
I want to say also, not just that I acknowledge their existence— I'm proud of them.
Yeah. I became Muslim— one of the major things that helped me to become Muslim is when I heard about the Islamic punishments that existed. And I honestly looked at them and felt, “You know what it is? I really believe this would solve the problems in our society.” And I really saw the wisdom in it. And I felt, “This is how it should be.” And it really encouraged me to look into Islam more.
You know when people say these types of things, a lot of times people step back and say, “Woah, you know like—this is really severe,” or “This is really harsh.” But I actually thought, “You know, I can see the wisdom— or I can see part of the wisdom in that.” And I was very, very— and until now I'm thoroughly proud of the Islamic legal system. And I don't make any apologies for it at all. I believe that it is what will bring about— it will bring about reconciliation and peace within the society, and safety and security for everybody.
And within that, there's some advice to the people giving daʿwah— whether the duʿāt, or even just the general layman speaking to a non-Muslim colleague, for example— not to hide anything from Islam.
Because you never know, something like that might be the thing that actually a non-Muslim hears.
Yeah, and also I feel that's true. A lot of people do hide things, and they kind of try to sugarcoat things. And sometimes the person later on finds out about them, and then feels really betrayed.
Like, I feel like, “Well, you know, I wanted to go in with my eyes open.” And surprisingly, people— you know, you would be surprised.
A lot of people— the things you think that people might find difficult, because you perhaps found it difficult yourself when you first heard about it, to understand the context of it— then you might be surprised that those things might actually be what brings a person to Islam.
Okay, this is turning into a cold seat, so let's make it a bit warmer. So you hear things like stoning, for example. Let's start with this particular punishment.
Does this exist in the Sharīʿah? Is this a prescribed punishment that you're proud of?
Yeah, absolutely. There is no doubt—by the consensus of the Muslims— that stoning exists within the Sharīʿah of Islam. And stoning is something that exists within the Tawrah as well.
And that is something that is also— to the best of my knowledge—not disputed. That stoning is explicitly mentioned in the Tawrah.
In fact, it's mentioned in the Tawrah for crimes like, for example, a rebellious son is stoned to death. One who violates the Sabbath is stoned to death. Falsely presenting a bride as a virgin—stoned to death. Cursing God—stoned to death. And inviting people to other religions—also stoning to death in the Tawrah.
That's in what we have—what they have—of the Tawrah. We do not know if that is what Allah revealed upon them because this is the ruling of— we don't have a proof for that one way or the other, about whether that was revealed by Allah.
But I wanted to show that this is something that clearly has a divine origin, because it is clearly present in the previous scriptures— without a shadow of a doubt.
And it is something which we know in the previous scriptures was the punishment for adultery of a married person. We know that because of what happened when the two Jewish people were brought before the Prophet ﷺ having committed zinā.
And the Prophet ﷺ, he asked them, “What do you find in the Tawrah for these people?” And they said, “We blacken their faces and we parade them— you know, we parade them around the city.”
So the Prophet ﷺ asked for the Tawrah to be brought and to be read. And they covered Āyat al-Rajm— they covered the part that talked about stoning to death. And when they lifted their finger, they saw that they had concealed the fact that the punishment for them was to be stoned to death.
So there's no doubt that this is something that existed before. And there is no doubt that this is something that exists within Islam.
Now, I want to describe this punishment a little bit because I do think it's important to understand the proper way of carrying out a punishment.
Because I started looking into this— and I started looking into different methods of execution. It's a bit more than that— but I did start looking into different methods of execution: lethal injection, electrocution, gas chambers, and all that type of stuff.
And I also looked into how stoning is carried out in different countries. And we want to be clear that what we're talking about is Islam here. We're not talking about a particular implementation of this in a particular country.
So the man is buried in the ground to the waist. The woman is buried in the ground to her chest height.
Okay. For additional concealment.
The stones should not be so large that they cause death— one stone causes instantaneous death—like dropping a boulder. And that is actually, I believe, what certain people took from the Tawrah and the Talmud— is they actually—what their practice was, was to push someone off the top of a building and drop a big boulder on them.
Would that not be better and quicker, some people may argue?
That's not the rule. I believe it is quicker— but that's not the ruling that Allah revealed.
The ruling that Allah revealed was in the middle. Not to use a big boulder that disfigures a person or crushes a person in one go and the person dies, nor to use little stones that prolong their punishment.
And you know, there's something in Islam— Wallāh, I found it so amazing when I was reading the chapters around this, and the fiqh around this— is how much the scholars of fiqh talk about not excessively hurting a person.
It's surprising—because we're talking about punishments— but not excessively hurting the person. They disliked and discouraged the use of very small stones that prolong a person’s suffering.
The purpose here is for the person to suffer— and this is the purpose— but before that, the purpose is to deter people from doing this. Right?
—Okay yeah.
So the purpose here is that— like Ibn al-Qayyim said, and others— this person has committed a crime which affected their whole body.
And the person in that way— the threat of pain, the threat of the pain of this punishment— is what will stop a person from a punishment— from a crime which is very easy to fall into. Right?
It’s very desirable. It’s all about desires and shahawāt. And you know, the person wants to do this, and there’s a very strong pull from the Shayṭān. But thinking about the potential punishment from that— that’s a big deterrent in stopping people from doing it.
And I want to also— so here we said— neither should it be small stones—unnecessary suffering— nor should it be a huge boulder that is dropped upon a person.
But it should be something of medium size that will get the matter over quickly, but at the same time will serve as a strong deterrent.
And I'm going to show you why stoning for adultery is intended to be a deterrent before everything else— and why it fulfills both deterrence and retribution properly.
In terms of deterrence: For a person to be stoned to death— we said that stoning to death is carried out for adultery of a married person who has had intimacy in an Islamically valid way.
So as for the young child— like young kid or young, you know, teenager or whatever— who fell into an error and made a mistake and whatever— this person is not stoned.
The one who is stoned is the one who has had a valid marriage, has had intimacy as part of a valid, correct marriage, and then has committed adultery.
And that’s consistent with the Islamic goals and aims of preserving honor and preserving people’s religion and protecting them.
So here—what does it take for someone to be convicted of adultery in Islam?
Okay, yeah, good question.
For someone to be convicted of adultery in Islam— in reality, there are only three ways that a person can be convicted of adultery in Islam.
One is confession. And what we see from the Prophet ﷺ is that he did not accept the confession immediately. When people would come—like the story of Māʿiz, for example, raḍiyallāhu ʿanhu, and the Ghāmidiyyah, and many stories of this that happened in Islam— the Prophet ﷺ discouraged them.
He said: "I think you need to just go away and think about it. Ask Allah’s forgiveness. Go back—perhaps it didn’t happen. Perhaps this wasn’t what happened."
He would discourage the person from confessing.
—Sorry, you said at the start that he was not the Shāriʿah? He wasn’t? So isn’t he taking the law into his own hands? I mean, Allah has prescribed this punishment, and he's trying to delay it?
So Allah has revealed that the job of the ḥākim— this is exactly my point— that the purpose that Allah legislated this for has more to do with deterrence than it does with retribution.
In the sense that the Prophet ﷺ is only muballigh. He’s only doing what Allah told him to do:
“Wa mā yanṭiqu ʿani l-hawā inna huwa illā waḥyun yūḥā” "He does not speak from his own desire— it is only a revelation that is revealed."
So he discouraged them: "Go and repent between you and Allah. If you haven’t been caught doing this, don’t take the cover that Allah has covered you with. Don’t go out and take that cover away from yourself."
He discouraged them several times, until he sent them away.
And in some of the situations, he sent them away. Then, when the situation persisted— that they kept on confessing: "Messenger of Allah, I want the punishment to be carried out upon me"— he established:
- that the person is sane,
- that the person is not suffering from mental illness,
- that they are not a child,
- that they have reached the age of adulthood,
- that there are no shubuhāt, no confusion.
And that’s why the Prophet ﷺ, in some of the narrations, asked: “Perhaps you only did this”— meaning, perhaps you didn’t reach the level of what is Islamically considered adultery. Perhaps you had a relationship that didn’t reach that far. Perhaps you don’t even know what adultery actually is.
And it’s only when they persisted in confession that this punishment was carried out.
That’s the first way.
The second way is pregnancy that could only have happened through adultery. And that is the second way that adultery or fornication is established.
So in this, there are very clear rules. There cannot be any shubha—any doubt. For example, if the person comes and says, “No, I actually had a premature birth,” or something like that... “I was married,” “...it wasn’t like that,”— all of those things stop the punishment from being carried out.
Yes, the judge may go to the level of taʿzīr, of discretionary punishment, if he believes it happened— but it doesn’t go to the level of the punishment that we’re talking about here of stoning to death.
And the third is for four adult male witnesses to witness the actual act of penetration— in terms of intercourse.
And not for them to see only two people go into a room together, or to hear something, or to see something happening from a distance.
That is a virtual impossibility— that that would ever happen— unless these people are out in the middle of the street.
So this is something that has— you can see from these things— that really, this is something where the majority of the emphasis is on deterrence. It’s on deterrence.
And this punishment of stoning is one that truly deters a person. It’s one of the only things that actually deters the shahawāt, the strength of the desires that lead a person to do this.
This is one of the only things that actually genuinely deters it.
But on top of that, Ibn al-Qayyim also mentioned— or alluded to— the fact that from the point of retribution, this person enjoyed something which affected their whole body.
So they also, in terms of retribution, deserve a punishment which affects their whole body as well. So the retribution is also in line with the crime.
And this is something which—let’s be honest— breaks families apart. And we’re not talking about unmarried people here. We’re not talking about young guys and girls doing things they shouldn’t.
We’re talking about something that breaks apart families. We’re talking about something that has huge effects upon children— children that come out from that.
It’s something that’s really sad— that in the world today, people just don’t recognize how serious this thing is.
But the Prophet ﷺ mentioned: among the worst of the things that a person can do is to commit adultery, for example, with the neighbor, or with the lady who is—say, for example— the wife of the neighbor or the daughter of the neighbor, for example.
—Okay. Let’s...
—So you see what I’m now putting across to you?
Yeah, I get the picture that you’re trying to paint. I think it requires some further probing.
And obviously, this is the first punishment that we’re discussing, so there’ll be some introductory questions.
For example, with the issue of miscarriage of justice, like you mentioned... So we are basically— and you’ve obviously laid out the three types of scenarios that this could be carried out— and you’re saying that this really gets rid of all shubuhāt, and it can’t be carried out if there’s any shubha, any doubt.
So for example, CCTV, DNA—all that stuff— is not considered to be... is not sufficient to establish this punishment.
Yeah. The problem that people have is that this is such an extreme punishment.
And yes, Ibn al-Qayyim might say that the whole body experienced pleasure, but that’s a temporary pleasure, and now this is a permanent ending of someone’s life.
That’s such a strong punishment on a system that is dependent on human beings.
For example, four male witnesses could conspire. Could conspire—come together and conspire— and say, "We saw this act." This is something that is open to...
—I disagree with that for a reason.
I think, first of all, that if there is any indication of a conspiracy, then that would surely be enough to prevent that punishment from being carried out.
Because:
“al-ḥudūd tutraḥ bi shubuhāt” Hudud are dropped in the presence of doubt.
So that’s one thing.
The second thing is: historically, there just aren’t any cases where these four witnesses actually came out and witnessed this.
This is something that is so rare that it’s virtually non-existent— that four witnesses actually witnessed this happening, except for people who we’re talking about being in full public display.
Other than that, it really isn’t conceivable, and it hasn’t really happened in history. And that’s why, really, all of the times this has happened have been through confession, not through witnesses.
—What about the second one you mentioned? Like a pregnancy that could not have happened unless it was outside of marriage?
No DNA test— how does that come to pass then?
—And how could that not be a case of mistaken identity? Or something that’s gone wrong? I mean, the fact that she’s pregnant is kind of... But if she’s married to someone, and then she’s pregnant with someone else’s child, for example— that’s a shubhah then?
—Oh, so that wouldn’t lead to the ḥadd punishment. We’re talking about something where there is no doubt.
—You’re saying it’s only if she’s not married, and she becomes pregnant— that’s what you’re saying? There’s no conceivable way...? Or, for example, her husband hasn’t been in the country for two years?
—How do you find out the man who...? Is the punishment just on her, or is it also on the man?
—That depends. If we don’t have a proof for who the man was, then we can’t carry out the punishment. Does that make sense?
—Yeah, okay. I mean, I think that all of the regulations and the restrictions here show that the emphasis on this is actually deterrence.
There is a greater emphasis upon deterrence than there is upon... And the fact that the Prophet ﷺ discouraged people from confession... If the purpose here was retribution, then the Prophet ﷺ would not have discouraged the person who came to confess.
—Yeah, I think a lot of people would totally agree that it’s a huge deterrent. I think people generally accept that— they’re not going to argue with that.
But this punishment being carried out in certain circumstances— even though those circumstances require a lot of detail behind them— the fact that it’s carried out for a crime that many people see as not harming anyone... It’s not murder, it’s not rape— it’s just two consenting adults. It’s a very, very strong punishment for a lot of people to digest.
—I think this is because of the corruption in society today, and the fact that we have... We have lost the... We have lost a lot of our values about what’s wrong— you know, what’s actually wrong.
Like for example, I’m sure we’re going to talk about apostasy later on, but people will also say that apostasy is a victimless crime and that this is not an issue.
I believe adultery absolutely destroys the fabric of society. I really believe that adultery, in terms of cheating on a spouse, absolutely destroys the fabric of society.
And I believe if the punishment is not severe, then the encouragement and the desire overcome the punishment. There has to be a severe punishment for this.
And Islam is consistent about this, by the way. And I believe this is another issue where perhaps we should have mentioned the principles— that the consistency of the Islamic punishments...
That Islam is very consistent. Adultery is regularly mentioned among the most severe of crimes.
It’s not the case that in Islam it’s a minor sin— but, oh, you get stoned to death for it.
—Right, I see.
—This is a severe crime in Islam. And honestly, I believe that we’ve just... We’ve reached a time in our society where there’s such a breakdown of society that people no longer believe that to be something which is a major thing.
And we’re not talking about two young people who get into a relationship, who do something they shouldn’t— that’s a different matter, and the punishment for them is suited to them.
And we’re also not talking about the slave, and so on and so forth, which has its own rulings.
But we’re talking about now: someone who goes and cheats on their spouse. We’re talking about the danger that brings to children, the fact that children are brought up from broken families— that has a huge impact on society.
And the purpose here is that you have a crime that there is a huge desire to commit.
I’m sorry, but murder— there is not a huge desire to commit murder, typically. And you have to be pretty upset—you know what— and angry to think about killing somebody.
—But zina is something which— yes, there is a desire to do it. There is a motivation to do it. Shaytan’s pull for you is strong. So you need a deterrent which is very, very strong.
And ultimately, the fact— and I really believe this also must be mentioned— the very fact that this punishment is known to everyone in the society, makes it fair.
Because if it wasn’t known— if somebody just turned up on the shores one day, you know, landed on the plane, got into a relationship with a married woman, and then said, “I didn’t even know this was wrong”— fair enough. There you can say now we have to discuss.
But this is something that is known. It is announced in Islam. So the person now has to take responsibility— the consequences for their actions.
If I go to a country, and that country tells me, “If you do x, y, z, we will do this to you,” then I have to take responsibility for my actions in this.
That’s my responsibility. It’s not unfair— it’s my responsibility to now decide what I want to do, to take on board the consequences for the actions that I’ve done.
—Yeah, so I want to almost flip your argument, where you’re saying that this is something that is— the desire is so strong— which I totally agree.
That many people would see that as something that Allah has put inside us— this strong desire.
We have a hadith that says everybody falls into sins— especially a sin where the desire is as strong as this.
Yet for that to happen— a mistake— a one-off mistake that someone’s made, they come to confess.
And at this—why do they come to confess? They just feel guilty. Why do they come to confess? They feel guilty because they know they made a mistake.
Why don’t we keep it between them and Allah, and repent, and nobody knows about it? They just feel like they can’t show their face in society.
It might be multiple reasons— I’m not sure.
But in that case then, should we not look at the forgiveness?
—So let us look at the stoning that was done, for example to... Let’s look at Ma’iz, for example. In the hadith of Ma’iz, the Prophet ﷺ said that he has made a repentance— that if that repentance was shared among the whole ummah, it would be enough for them.
Or a whole group of people— it would be enough for them.
In some narrations, it’s mentioned regarding one of the women— that she made tawbah with a tawbah that if it was divided among 70 people, it would have been enough for them.
That is a person’s personal choice to make that tawbah. You’re right, they get in that situation: “I can’t show my face in society, I feel terrible.” They can’t keep it between them and Allah, and then the punishment is carried out to them.
They are completely forgiven for that sin in the sight of Allah.
More than that, the Prophet ﷺ said it’s a tawbah that if it was shared among 70 people, every one of them would be forgiven for the sins they did.
It’s a very strong tawbah.
It’s not encouraged in Islam to do. The Prophet ﷺ discouraged it. It’s not encouraged in Islam.
But the fact that a person may make a personal choice for that to be carried out for them— they will get the reward of that in the hereafter, in the forgiveness of Allah, and the rehabilitation as it relates to the rehabilitation— al-ukhrawī, in the hereafter.
—Perhaps confession was actually the wrong example, because you’re right. But let’s talk about a woman— like you said, the husband’s traveling.
She’s made one mistake now. She’s got pregnant as a result of it. She’s now going to be stoned to death as a result, from a desire that is so strong.
—So obviously she’s going to have the baby first, and she’s going to provide the baby with— feed the baby first, because we don’t punish the baby at the end of the day.
And she’s going to— the baby has to be at a stage where it can be looked after by someone, and so on and so forth.
And then— she knew this punishment existed, ultimately. She’s just fallen into a mistake. The way the desires are so strong.
—And then she’ll be forgiven for what she has done. She’ll be forgiven by that.
At the end of the day, the mistakes are mistakes, but they have consequences.
Like one day, somebody falls into a mistake and decides to do something that is an act of disbelief. It’s a mistake— but they have consequences.
And you say, we have to accept the consequences of our actions. But there are also consequences to society, like you say.
Like the concept of zina, and the thing that happens to society— this baby now has to go out without a mother. Do we know what we’re saying?
Absolutely. This baby now has to be looked after. The baby is not guilty of anything. A person doesn't carry the burden of someone else. But that baby now has to be looked after and taken care of — either by the processes that are put in place by the state, by the Muslim treasury, and so on, or by a family that adopts that child.
And that child should not be given anything that puts them at a disadvantage at the end of the day. But we still have to punish the person who is guilty of the crime — otherwise, there’s no deterrence.
Yeah, I think a lot of people would actually feel more comfortable if this were the punishment, for example, for murder and not for zina. Because murder, like you said, is not something that you really inherently want to do. So if you’ve really gone to that extreme, it’s a big punishment for you.
But it’s just — I think some people feel uncomfortable with the concept of two consenting adults. So I think we’ve kind of been around this before, this idea — first of all — of what zina is. And we’re not talking about two consenting adults. Let’s be clear that we’re talking about the ones who are married here.
We’re not talking about... because their desire for them should be less. They have a permissible alternative for this. They’ve chosen to betray their spouse — unless the husband is traveling, like you said. Okay, but they’ve chosen to betray their spouse.
Is that— yeah? Yeah, that’s fair.
And they have done something which causes a fundamental breakdown in the fabric of society. And again, the number of people who’ve actually been punished for this in Islam is actually very, very small — because it requires either confession, in which case that’s a tawbah from the person, and they’ll be rehabilitated in the ākhirah; or it requires a level of proof which really is very unlikely to happen, except in the most extreme of cases.
I think that is — that’s a balance. And I think that this idea that people mention, that "love is not a crime," I actually find that to be an emotional argument that doesn’t really look at the reality of what happens.
And that’s what people say — this, you know, "two consenting adults." And they say the same thing about homosexuality, and they say the same thing about many other things: that this should not be something that is a crime.
But ultimately, Allah is the one who should decide what is allowed and what is not allowed. And Allah subḥānahu wa taʿālā has legislated this:
ولا تقربوا الزنا Don’t come near to zina إنه كان فاحشة It is a filthy thing to do It’s an evil thing. It’s an evil way to go.
And Allah subḥānahu wa taʿālā has consistently told us this.
And I suppose when you look at the sharīʿah as a whole — like you said, the importance of doing that — the fact that free mixing is not allowed, and the niqāb, and the jilbāb, and there are so many steps that prevent it from even getting to this stage...
Okay, let’s look at the punishment itself. You described quite a gruesome picture. I’m going to have to put a disclaimer at the start of this video, I think.
Men being buried to the waist, women being buried to the chest, being stoned... people are
Are people throwing these stones? People are throwing stones. They're not allowed to curse the person — the Prophet ﷺ has prohibited them from cursing the person.
Some of the scholars said the imām should be the first one to throw the stone — or the qāḍī — or should be the first one, because the qāḍī is the one who made the pronouncement. Some of them said this.
Okay, did any of the scholars say how long this might take? Is it half an hour, an hour?
I looked into this, so I have some statistics on this — in terms of methods of the death penalty.
So definitely beheading — I know this is going to be a bit gruesome, right? Yeah, I'm sure you had an interesting evening the other night when you were looking into it. Yeah, I mean, if anyone looks at my Google history, it’s all like: "beheading," "stoning to death," "lethal injection"...
So beheading — typically, if it's done mercifully and properly with a sharp sword — should take around about two seconds before the person loses consciousness, and around about eight to ten seconds before the person is clinically dead.
In terms of electric shocks — typically, the electric chair now is considered in most places... It was really only used in the States and one other country, I believe. And in many places now, it is considered to be cruel and unusual punishment.
There have been people who have taken over half an hour to die because of botched setups — not having it set up properly, and things like that.
But under normal circumstances? In normal circumstances, it's supposed to be quite quick — the issue of electrocution. But it hasn’t been consistent.
If you look at the number of people who’ve been electrocuted and the number of times that it hasn’t worked properly — for one reason or another — it is quite significant.
Gas chambers take roughly somewhere in the region of 11 minutes, which is why they’re not really used very commonly.
And lethal injection again has had a mixed result. If it's done properly, it’s supposed to be relatively quick — within a couple of minutes or so. But it’s not unheard of to take between 30 to 45 minutes for a person to die from a lethal injection — particularly with the feeling that they may be paralyzed and in pain for that period of time.
Short hanging was another one — short hanging: 10 to 20 minutes of choking to death.
And long hanging is actually the closest one to beheading, which is where they measure the length of the rope. And that one should be — again, if it’s done properly and measured correctly — it should be instantaneous.
Okay. In terms of stoning to death, I couldn’t find a specific amount of time. However, it takes a very long time if the stones are very small, and it is relatively instantaneous if the stone is huge. Oh, if it's massive — okay, yeah. But of course, instant unconsciousness... Yeah. So one that doesn’t cause instant unconsciousness — it shouldn’t be used.
And the ʿulamā’ of fiqh mentioned this — it shouldn’t be a prolonged suffering. That’s not the purpose of it. It should be something which is not prolonged.
I have seen reports of it taking several minutes, but those reports were, as far as we can see, in countries where it's not properly regulated. For example, people throwing small stones and things like that.
So it shouldn’t be something — and this is something that applies to all of the punishments. The scholars mentioned that the purpose of the punishment is to punish — it’s a punishment — but it's not to cause unnecessary suffering beyond the punishment that is described in the Qur’an.
And it's not to cause someone to be punished for this huge length of time. Yeah.
So just like you want to look at the ḥudūd within the context of the sharīʿah, this particular punishment — the context of the time — 7th century Arabia — no electrocution, obviously, at that time.
Why can’t we update these punishments to make it quicker? Like you said, Islam and the sharīʿah is a mercy to mankind. There were punishments that were quicker. Beheading is the quickest one of all of them.
Yeah, I mean, beheading is the quickest and the most merciful of all of the punishments — two seconds for unconsciousness with a sharp sword. And the person is immobilized, and a single blow — you're talking about two seconds. It’s the quickest of all of them.
It’s quicker than lethal injection. It’s quicker than electrocution. It’s quicker than everything.
However, the sharīʿah specifically legislated this punishment — even though beheading was available to them.
Yes, electrocution wasn’t available to them. Lethal injection wasn’t available to them. But beheading was available to them, and that was not chosen in this instance.
And that appears to be for the reasons that I presented — and Allah knows best. I don’t have a naṣṣ to bring to you that that is the specific reason, but you do have to ask: why is it that this punishment is carried out in that way, with the availability of a punishment — It’s a valid point — — which is much quicker? And there has to be a ḥikmah — a wisdom — and a reason for that.
Okay. Are people watching this? Other people — like from society? Yeah. Allah subḥānahu wa taʿālā commanded for there to be witnesses to this punishment.
And the purpose of the witnesses — there are multiple purposes behind having witnesses.
The first is that the deterrence spreads among society. That’s the first one. Okay. That people — when it’s witnessed — when it’s not witnessed, there’s no deterrence in it. Yeah. You know, and ultimately, a huge amount of what that person is going through is in order to deter other people from doing the same.
The whole point is: if one person goes through this, the hope is that a hundred other people won’t. You know, those hundred other people who are on the edge of that — will not go through that now.
But that has to be witnessed. That has to be known. That’s the first thing.
The second thing is to make sure that the punishment is actually carried out — to ensure that this is being carried out and to witness that this is being carried out properly.
And the third thing is that this is a matter of the religion — and it's a matter of establishing something which is from the symbolic acts within the religion.
From the things by which the religion is known is that the religion has punishments that are carried out. And so the witnessing of them is not a bad thing. It's not something that is considered to be done secretly or behind closed doors. Rather, it's something that is a part of our religion.
And it's a tawbah (repentance) for that person. Ultimately, that person will be washed, shrouded, buried, and prayed over — as would any other Muslim who died. It doesn’t take them out of Islam. In fact, it’s what brings them forgiveness and rehabilitation in the Hereafter.
So in the Hereafter, just from an Islamic perspective, the person who doesn't confess but is caught committing this crime — that process of stoning actually expiates their entire sin.
Absolutely — their sin is expiated completely. The Prophet ﷺ said: لَقَدْ تَابَ تَوْبَةً “They have repented with a repentance لَوْ قُسِمَتْ عَلَى أُمَّةٍ لَوَسِعَتْهُمْ If it were distributed among a whole nation, it would suffice them,” or, “If it were divided among seventy people, it would be enough for them.”
As for the one who dies without that, then that person is under the mashīʾah (will) of Allah ʿazza wa jall. If Allah wills, He will forgive them, and if Allah wills, He will punish them.
And if they have made true repentance in their life — which is true تَوْبَةً نَصُوحًا (tawbah nasūḥah, sincere repentance) — they will be forgiven. Because: مَنْ تَابَ تَابَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ "Whoever repents, Allah will accept their repentance."
And that's why in Islam, it is preferred for the one who is not caught not to confess. It’s preferred for them to keep their repentance between them and Allah.
But if they choose to confess, then that is something which is made available to them — and it will, in shā’ Allāh, have a huge effect on them in the Hereafter in terms of forgiveness, and a huge effect in terms of deterrence for other people.
And that's really the essence of the issue of ḥayā’ (modesty), of life, and of qiṣāṣ (retribution) — this idea that when one person undergoes this punishment, there are hundreds or thousands of people who otherwise would be on the verge of this, who step back and say:
“No, you know what it is? We’ve now learned our lesson from that.”
And that again is from the person with that confession and so on — which is not encouraged in the first place in Islam.
I think all of these checks and balances come together to make a very balanced system, which genuinely achieves the goals of deterrence and retribution.
Okay, last question on this issue of adultery — and just before we move on to some of the other punishments or some of the other crimes.
Someone might say: we appreciate that in Islam, or in Islamic history, this hasn’t been carried out very often. But as you said at the start — this is meant for all times, all places.
And if this were implemented in the West, for example, on an hourly basis you’d be getting these kinds of punishments.
I actually think if this was implemented in the West, you might have that the first day it was implemented — and after that, you probably wouldn’t have it at all.
Because people would actually say, “No.” And you know what it is? Marriage is not difficult.
Well — a marriage is not difficult. Even if you're not happy with the person you're married to, both men and women have a recourse to leave the marriage.
They have ṭalāq, khulʿ, faskh — a way of getting out of the marriage.
All Islam asks you to do is: if you're not happy in the marriage you're in, dissolve that marriage through one of the permitted means.
Wait your appropriate length of time that you’re required to wait — if you have a length of time you’re required to wait — and then marry the person that you want to marry.
Islam doesn’t make marriage difficult. You know— I think a lot of this as well, maybe it comes from — certainly — Catholic and other Christian practices, where divorce is impossible.
Where people typically commit adultery because they cannot physically get divorced or get remarried.
Islam did not make it difficult to divorce, nor did it make it difficult to remarry.
So really, there is no excuse for that level of betrayal — and that level of damage to the fabric of society, the children, the wider family — and the loss of nasab (lineage), the loss of people’s honor.
There really is no excuse for that when Islam made marriage so easy.
So people will see, okay — it’s easy for them to get married. It’s easy for people to get out of a marriage that they are unhappy in.
And that should be sufficient for a person — without needing to go into the ḥarām (forbidden).
And I also believe there’s one further point that’s really important — and I think it’s a benefit in all of these topics — which is that it’s so important that you don’t spread the practice to others.
It’s not just that one person.
So you might say, okay — let’s just take the argument that, you know, it’s two people in love, and “love is not a crime,” and all that type of thinking.
That’s fine — if it’s just one person.
But what happens when that becomes a culture?
Look now in the West — hasn’t it become a culture? Everybody cheats on everyone.
And it’s become like — cheating is normal.
And all these kids are being raised without proper, stable parenting — and all these kinds of problems that arise in society.
And really, it’s become something that spreads among people.
So one of the purposes of the ḥudūd (prescribed punishments) is also to stop this spread.
And this is something we’ll talk about, in shā’ Allāh, when we come to apostasy as well — this issue of spreading a problem to large numbers of people in society, versus it being something rare that someone just falls into.
Okay, on the issue of stoning — just before we move on — is there any other crime in Islam where stoning is the prescribed punishment, other than adultery?
This is something which there is a difference of opinion about.
For example, the issue of homosexuality.
Homosexuality is forbidden in Islam.
It’s considered to be a subset of adultery, in reality.
So, as a subset of adultery — because you can't legally marry someone of the same gender — Islamically, legally...
Islamically, you can’t marry someone of the same gender.
So that’s consistent.
Again, I think sometimes when Islam gets a hard time over this kind of thing, it’s actually quite unfair.
Because to be honest, Islamic rules are very, very consistent.
Some of the scholars considered it to be a separate punishment — a separate category, that it has its own system of punishment.
And others considered it to be a subset of adultery. And as a subset of adultery, it comes under the same ruling.
Other than that, I don’t recall anything at the moment.
I mean, if you have something, you can bring it in shā’ Allāh.
I do think we should talk, though, about: What about the people who are unmarried? What is their punishment?
So the punishment for them is considerably lighter.
The punishment for them is 100 lashes, and what they call taghrīb — to be expelled from their place of residence for a year.
Some of the scholars said that, in terms of expelling someone to a different city, that taghrīb is effectively imprisonment, or that it is equivalent to imprisonment.
But as for the 100 lashes, I also want to describe how the lashes take place.
Okay — so the first thing is that the lashing should not be strong enough to cause severe damage.
It shouldn't be so weak that it doesn’t hurt — but it should not cause any broken bones, and it should not cause blood to pour out from the person.
The health and age of the person being lashed should also be taken into account.
So, for example, an old person who is infirm — who is very weak — especially if the lashing is going to cause them severe health issues afterwards, it can't be carried out.
In that case, it would have to be replaced with a different kind of punishment.
Again, I personally find this idea of lashing — you know, people have this image of someone with a bare back, being lashed until their back is just a mess of blood — or things like that.
That’s not what Islam prescribed.
The lashing is meant to hurt — it’s meant to be painful — but it’s not meant to cause lasting injury to the person.
Q: So how do you reconcile that with the images people have seen from countries implementing this, where they do see scenes like that?
Absolutely — I think that is down to people not implementing the religion of Islam properly.
I don’t know whether those are Muslim countries or non-Muslim countries, but if they are Muslim countries, then a person needs to look carefully at how that is being carried out.
Because from what I’ve looked into — from the statements of the Fuqahā’ (scholars of Islamic jurisprudence) — they said:
It should be strong enough that it is a deterrent and it does hurt, but it should not be so strong that it causes broken bones and severe bleeding, and it should not cause long-term health problems for the person.
And you know, honestly — wallāhi, honestly — I'm going to say something, and you might be surprised.
Go ahead.
But honestly, if you offered me the choice between imprisonment in a prison in the West today, and lashes — wallāhi, I would rather be lashed.
Wouldn’t it depend on the length of time you're going to be imprisoned?
Wallāhi, to be honest, I can't think of a situation... I mean, okay — if it were just for a day, maybe.
Yeah, you described it earlier as relative comfort. You said five years — “relative comfort” — when you were talking about that.
Five years of relative comfort?
Five years in a prison — I would rather be lashed, to be honest.
It’s painful — it’s not a nice thing to happen — but it is a fitting punishment for these kinds of things.
At the end of the day, this is two people who had a relationship outside of marriage — but they hadn’t been married before.
They didn’t have a ḥalāl (permissible) outlet for it.
They fell into a mistake — and so, 100 lashes is a very fitting, balanced punishment.
Knowing that when you put people in jail, a lot of criminality develops in jail.
When you're putting people unnecessarily in jail — because they don’t have anything else to do with them — they just end up networking with other criminals.
I actually know — wallāhi, it’s really sad — and I really believe this:
I know of brothers who ended up going to prison.
Good kids, you know, who — to be honest — they made mistakes and went to prison, and they ended up coming out as criminals.
And ultimately, we have to have an alternative to that kind of system.
It’s not that the solution is just to incarcerate everybody — just keep locking people up.
Lashes are painful — they give a deterrent — but they don’t cause long-term health issues.
It’s something — nobody wants to be lashed a hundred times.
People are going to think, “I do not want that. I would never want that to happen to me.”
But ultimately, I think that sometimes there are people in prison who say that death would be preferable to them.
I mean, there are quotes from inmates who say, “I would rather die than be in this place.”
And I think that the answer of just imprisoning people constantly is actually, in a way, more harmful to those people and less beneficial to society.
Sometimes, a punishment like lashes — which is obviously also a punishment for, for example, substance abuse, alcohol, and so on — and it can also be used as taʿzīr — as a discretionary punishment, something available to the judge to carry out, should there be a crime that doesn't reach the level of ḥadd.
So I think it’s actually something — I really don’t see what the fuss is about, to be honest.
Except when it’s done inappropriately, or it’s not carried out as it should be.
It’s actually something where the person can move on with their life after having that done.
And they can actually go on — but it’s a deterrent that makes them think, “Okay, I’ve suffered for what I’ve done. It wasn’t nice to have it done to me. I don’t want to ever do it again.”
It does stop other people from wanting to do it again.
And I don’t have to pay £45,000 a year to keep this person in prison.
Okay, let’s move on to another quite commonly quoted issue in this topic, and that is the issue of:
Chopping people’s hands off for theft.
Right. Chopping off the hand, huh?
So first of all — again — I was actually really impressed with this punishment when I first heard about it, when I was first looking into Islam.
I think there have to be two things present for this to be a just and fitting punishment:
First, it can’t apply to all theft.
Because there’s opportunistic theft — You know, someone’s mobile phone is on the table, and someone just picks it up and runs off.
That’s impulsive.
And it’s not what we want to see — that someone who does an impulsive theft has a lifelong disfigurement for that.
So it has to be of a certain level, and there have to be specific conditions in the way the theft is carried out.
Now, I’m going to talk about those conditions in Islam — but just from a logical point of view, I felt that it can’t be every theft.
And the second thing is that there can’t be any doubt over it.
Because it would be horrific for someone to lose their hand — something so essential to their life — to lose their hand because of something that wasn’t even certain to be theft, or there was a doubt over it.
And Islam provides both of those two things.
As we said:
"Al-Ḥudūd tudra'u bish-shubuhāt" — The prescribed punishments are dropped if there are doubts.
If there's any doubt over the validity of what happened — if there’s any doubt in the mind of the criminal — then this is something that is not carried out.
Now I want to talk to you a little bit about some of the conditions for this punishment to be carried out.
First condition:
It must be stolen in a way that the scholars call khifiyatan — ʿalā wajh al-khifiyyah — it has to be done secretly.
There are different punishments for different types of theft. For example, highway robbery, or when someone just comes in and snatches a phone off a desk, or pulls a card out of someone’s hand and runs off, or pulls a handbag and runs.
There are different rulings depending on the method.
It has to be wealth that is valuable, and it has to reach a certain monetary threshold.
That value is a quarter of a dīnār, or its equivalent in currency.
Now, some people ask:
"What about the ḥadīth of someone who steals an egg and loses their hand?"
The meaning is not that a person loses their hand for stealing an egg.
The meaning is that petty theft leads to major crime, and eventually leads to the punishment being carried out.
It’s also a condition that it must be taken from a place of security.
So this is premeditated theft, taken from a place where the item was safely kept.
It’s not like, "Oh, I left my laptop on the table in a coffee shop and came back, and it was gone."
Rather, we’re talking about something stored properly — in a safe, in a cupboard, in its proper place.
So, if it's taken from an unsecured or accidental location, it doesn't meet the standard for the ḥadd punishment.
And it has to be proven beyond any doubt.
If there’s any doubt, then the judge may apply taʿzīr — a discretionary punishment — but not the chopping of the hand.
And finally, it has to be the case that the one who was stolen from actually reports the crime, and wants there to be retribution.
It’s not the case that they say, “You know what, I forgive them,” or “I’m not bothered about it anymore.”
If they say that, then no punishment is carried out.
Also, if there are mitigating circumstances — they call it in legal terminology —
For example, there's a famine, or people are starving, and someone steals food out of desperation —
Then again, this is not a situation for the ḥadd punishment.
There might be taʿzīr, a lighter punishment, but not the prescribed chopping of the hand.
So really, we’re talking about:
A serious, premeditated, deliberate act of theft of significant value, taken from a secure place, with no doubt, and with the victim wanting retribution.
And again, I just want us to reflect on what’s happening in a lot of countries now — where theft is not being investigated, not taken seriously.
It’s got to the point — even in the UK — as I record this video —
Burglaries, people breaking into homes, stealing life possessions, leaving the victims feeling — to be honest — violated.
Someone came into your house, broke in, and stole your belongings.
And it’s got to the point where police say, “Well, just fill out the insurance form.” That’s all they can do.
There needs to be a deterrent.
There’s just no deterrent in the current legal system. People are stealing with impunity.
This is premeditated, deliberate, valuable theft.
And I think that losing your hand is a very fitting deterrent for that.
It’s very appropriate. Because the person is losing exactly what they used to steal with.
Especially when you consider all of these conditions — I think that’s something really coming through in this discussion:
That all of these punishments have a number of conditions that many people might not be aware of.
It’s a nuanced discussion. It’s not just, “I saw him do it — chop off his hand.”
You’ve lived in Muslim countries before — a couple of different Muslim countries.
Regardless of whether they implement this properly or not — have you seen the issue of theft, for example, like you said in the UK —
So common, so downplayed?
Is it different in Muslim countries?
I think it is different. And I think the more countries implement this, the less theft you actually see.
Because theft— really, the motivation for theft is typically greed, right? Usually.
There are cases—mitigating circumstances— where it’s extreme poverty, and things like that. But those are not typically situations where you'd look at a person and say, "This person should lose their hand."
You’re talking about theft that is primarily driven by greed. And honestly, in societies where this has been clamped down on, I felt very strongly about it.
In fact, I felt more strongly about this— when I was first looking into Islam— than I did about the punishments for adultery or apostasy.
Now, I recognize the wisdom in all of those— those are from Allah, and Allah’s ruling is the best ruling. But this one really resonated with me.
Because it's a really horrible thing to have something stolen from you in that way— in a premeditated, deliberate manner.
I think it needs a deterrent.
Islam is not trying to create a society where people are walking around without hands. That’s not the point.
But you have to have something that genuinely stops people from stealing.
Right now, you’ve got such a breakdown of the law that people are committing burglaries, and they’re not even being investigated.
People are forming gangs, and they’re just going around stealing, knowing there are no real consequences for what they’re doing.
And I think the whole issue here is:
Islam emphasizes deterrence more than retribution— although retribution is also fair.
Again, if someone has stolen something— from someone else, from their private space, in a premeditated way, breaking in, taking something of real value, causing hurt to the person—
Then what’s a fitting retribution?
What should you lose?
Your tongue? No. You should lose your hand.
That’s a fitting retribution for it.
And again, we go back to the golden rule:
Al-Ḥudūd tudra’u bish-shubuhāt The prescribed punishments are lifted in the presence of doubt.
This is applied in theft more than probably anything else. Because there are so many doubts.
“I thought it was mine.” “I thought this person owed it to me.” “I had an agreement with them.”
There are loads of doubts that could exist around theft. And if those doubts exist, then this ḥadd punishment is not carried out.
Just to go back to the comparison between Western countries and Muslim countries—
I think, for me personally, when I was living in the UK, I really thought it was like this everywhere. I didn’t realize that it could be different.
Then you hear stories from Muslim countries—
And you mentioned it earlier when we talked about how the Western punishment system has failed.
One of the proofs for that failure is: People used to leave their front doors open.
Even as recently as 2021, I know of stories where people in Muslim countries would leave jewelry shops full of gold— unlocked—just go for prayer, and come back with the door still open, and nothing missing.
Why? Because of the deterrent. It just wouldn’t happen.
And that’s something a lot of people living in the West don’t realize. They’ve never heard these kinds of stories. And I think it’s profound.
Because we put so much emphasis on “We have to protect these poor criminals...” “It’s so unfair what we do to these poor robbers and thieves...”
But if you think about it:
One person goes through that punishment, and the whole city benefits with safety and security.
That’s the point.
Did that person commit a crime or not? Yes, they did. And they fulfilled the conditions of that crime.
So to be honest, I’m not going to shed tears over that. I’m going to look at the overall picture and say:
Wow. That punishment led to real peace and safety in society.
And by the way, that person was also forgiven for the theft they committed.
Now, on the issue of forgiveness— what if the person doesn’t regret what they did?
Are they still forgiven?
Well, that's a good question. If a person doesn't regret what they did, but the punishment is carried out, then perhaps we can say—and Allah ʿAzza wa Jal knows best— it's something worth looking into.
Maybe we can cover that in a Q&A section— but there are two aspects to it: The actual sin itself, yes— and the punishment that came with it.
Also, you mentioned one of the conditions, and I think this will be on the minds of a lot of people: You said it has to be of a certain amount— a quarter of a dinar, I think you said?
Any idea of the rough conversion nowadays?
It’s about 1.4 grams of gold, I believe. So it is—I mean with gold prices today— somewhere in the region of $85–$90. Something like that.
It’s something of significant value. We’re not talking about— okay, I don’t know—maybe your expectations of value are higher than mine!
But across the whole world, we’re talking about an amount that, for most people, hurts.
Because if you look at the world— not just the UAE or the UK, but globally—that’s a significant amount of money when you take in the whole spectrum.
And of course, you can’t have one price for one country, and another price for another. It has to be universal.
That’s not a small amount of money.
Even now, if someone stole from you, let’s say, £20 —or maybe $30— it’s not a huge amount. It’s not something you’ll never recover from, or that you’ll be scarred by for life.
But once you get up to a significant amount like that, it does make a big difference to people— depending on their income, of course.
Do you reckon it justifies a hand being lost for life?
I believe it does justify it, yeah.
But the point of this isn’t to say, "Your hand is worth 100 dollars."
That’s not what this is about.
The point is: Small amounts—that are insignificant— do not justify such a severe punishment.
Like, if someone stole a bag of sugar, or someone stole an egg, or something minor like that— then that person shouldn’t face such a severe consequence.
There has to be a threshold— a point where you say, "This was something of real value."
Okay, and what happens to people who engage in theft but it doesn’t meet those conditions?
For example, they steal something smaller than that?
Then it goes to taʿzīr, isn’t it?
Discretionary punishment.
Taʿzīr is a broad topic.
The scholars differed on some aspects of it— for example: Can there be a financial punishment?
The majority of scholars— the jumhūr, the vast majority from the four madhāhib— they said financial punishments are not allowed in taʿzīr.
They said financial penalties are not part of discretionary punishment.
But some scholars— like Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah, among others— they did allow financial punishments as a form of taʿzīr.
Like a fine, for example.
Also, from the types of discretionary punishment: Imprisonment.
And by the way— imprisonment in the time of the Prophet ﷺ— you know, a person would be kept in the masjid, right?
Really? They used to imprison someone— and that was one of the options they had?
To tie them to a pillar in the masjid?
That's a beautiful way of bringing a person back to the deen— giving them da'wah back to Islam.
Also, you had things like lashes, but less than the ḥadd.
Many of the scholars put a limit: It can’t reach the level of a ḥadd punishment.
Not 50 or 100 lashes. It has to be a small number, something less than the ḥadd.
Some scholars put this as a condition.
So for taʿzīr—discretionary punishment— the judge has to look at the situation, what’s needed for deterrence, rehabilitation, retribution, incapacitation, and so on, in the context of what actually happened.
That’s why you have this discretionary level.
Again, the scholars differed: Is it allowed for taʿzīr to reach the same level as a ḥadd? Or must it stay below that?
That’s a matter of ikhtilāf (scholarly difference). Some of them allowed severe taʿzīr punishments. Others only allowed it in cases that were less severe than what we’ve been discussing.
Okay, you’ve talked a lot about deterrence, and we’ve also talked about retribution, and rehabilitation.
So we’ve now covered two punishments so far: Stoning to death—rehabilitation in the dunyā? Non-existent. Absolutely 100%.
Capital punishment— there’s no rehabilitation in this life.
But we did establish earlier that rehabilitation is not a universal objective of sentencing in Islam.
It’s present in some things, and not others.
That’s why even in other systems, you have life tariffs— whole-life sentences in prison.
There’s no rehabilitation there either. They’re not trying to bring that person back into society.
However— rehabilitation in Islam is wider than just that. Like, how do you bring a person back to righteousness?
How do you bring someone back to being an upright, decent member of society?
That’s īmān. That is the real rehabilitation.
And that’s why Islam has a wide and comprehensive view.
It’s not just about, “Give them a job,” or “Teach them they don’t have to steal.”
Yes, that’s a small part.
But a greater part of rehabilitation is actually faith.
And if Allah ʿAzza wa Jal forgives a person through a punishment being carried out, that’s a huge rehabilitation in terms of their īmān.
There are some crimes for which we do not want rehabilitation in terms of bringing a person back into society.
That’s clear in Islam.
For example, a person who took someone else’s life.
We’re not looking to bring that person back as a productive member of the community.
If they made that deliberate decision, and the conditions were fulfilled, then retribution means they must lose their own life in return.
And this is where retribution takes precedence. Because retribution always exists in Islamic sentencing— as opposed to rehabilitation, which is a secondary consideration, not a primary one.
Now, speaking from the angle of non-Muslims who criticize Islam: In their own system, rehabilitation is also not always a primary goal.
It’s secondary, and it’s not present in every case.
In fact, one of the biggest criticisms of modern systems is exactly that.
People say: "If you have a criminal record and come out of jail, you can’t find a job." And so, a lot of people just go back to crime.
So aren’t you doing the same thing by chopping someone’s hand off? They come back, everyone knows, and no one will trust them again.
But one of the most beautiful things is— you mentioned criminal records.
Let’s talk about the criminal record in Islam.
In Islam, the criminal record is what the angel on your left-hand side writes down.
That’s your criminal record.
And for that record to be wiped out, the people in the society recognize that this person has been rehabilitated by Allah.
The Prophet ﷺ forbade that such a person should be cursed, or mistreated, because this is someone whom Allah has rehabilitated.
Wow. I mean—Allah has brought this person back— in terms of their īmān, and in terms of their practice.
Yes, it’s a huge stigma to lose a hand, but there has to be deterrence. Because if it isn’t there, that same person could walk out tomorrow, see something they covet, and think, "Maybe I’ll just take it—just one time."
But that is a constant reminder. And ultimately, there has to be a balance. And that's why if you only look at rehabilitation as a sole goal of legislation—yeah—you actually find that you'll never find a balance. There has to be a balance. There have to be times where we say, "No, retribution here is more important than rehabilitation." But we provide a means for rehabilitation.
I think Islam provides the greatest means because it provides a means that relates to the person's imān rather than to the person's job prospects or whatever. That is something which is rizq—it's from Allah subḥānahu wa taʿālā. And there's no reason why the Muslim treasury doesn't support a person in that regard, because a person is considered to be clean—you know, they've been purified.
But it has to be—we have to take all of those things into account. And I would argue that no human being is actually able to get that balance right. There is no human being that is able to balance between the different needs of sentencing. Instead, that has to come from the One who knows everything and has infinite wisdom and the best judgment. He's the only one who can find the balance which is truly appropriate for the society.
Otherwise, we keep trying to find it, and you know, on one side, we're shedding tears over hardened criminals, and on the other side, we're just, you know, imprisoning people who are turning into criminals. And then we've got people who've committed crimes that—wallāhi—they are like, you couldn't find a punishment suitable for it. And it's all just upside down.
So then why did Islam leave the door open to taʿzīr—discretionary punishment—up to a human being, the qāḍī, the judge? Yeah, I think because in discretionary punishments, here the matter is lighter, because it hasn't reached a level of the most severe level of the crime. It hasn't reached that level. And so the discretionary punishment that is available to the judge—the judge has guidelines now—because the purpose here is now achievable within the framework of the law sent down by Allah.
Now it's not that the judge doesn't just sit there and pick a punishment like, "Well, what have we got today? We haven't lashed anyone for a few hours, all right, go on, let's lash him." You know, like, it's not like that. The judge has a framework and guidelines in which to act. But at the end of the day, they are looking at these things. They are looking at: How do we deter people from doing it? How do we rehabilitate this person?
This discretionary punishment—typically, not always—but typically, there is rehabilitation after it. Typically. There are some cases the scholars differed about, whether a person can be killed in discretionary punishment or not, and so on. And the judge has more—it's something which hasn't reached that high level of severity or commonality that's so common and so normal in society like these things which Allah has given us prescribed and specific punishments for.
وَلَا يُكَلِّفُ اللَّهُ نَفْسًا إِلَّا وُسْعَهَا
Allah doesn't burden a person with what they can't bear. So it must be within the ability of the judge to give out these discretionary punishments under the concept of jihād and so on.
Okay, let's move on to something which I would hope everybody agrees with: this is a crime and it deserves to be punished, which is the issue of murder—which no doubt probably featured in your search history the other night.
What is the punishment in Islam for murder?
Okay, so typically, in terms of murder in Islam, the concept that we have in Islam is the concept of qiṣāṣ. Okay? Which is a life for a life. And that is something which is well established in, again, in the Torah.
Just before we go into some of those things—doesn't that sound a bit mafia-ish? Like, you kill one of ours, we're going to kill yours. And then you see this in gang culture—just constant killing back and forth.
Yeah, I think if you are talking about vigilantism, then I think that's a valid point. But I think when you're talking about a legal system, it's not. Because here it's carried—this is a punishment which is revealed by Allah, which is carried out by the state, not by the other person.
Now, that could be said, and some people do misunderstand that in the āyah in Sūrat al-Isrāʾ, in which Allah ʿazza wa jall said:
وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا النَّفْسَ الَّتِي حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ وَمَنْ قُتِلَ مَظْلُومًا فَقَدْ جَعَلْنَا لِوَلِيِّهِ سُلْطَانًا فَلَا يُسْرِفْ فِي الْقَتْلِ إِنَّهُ كَانَ مَنْصُورًا
That: Do not kill the soul that Allah has prohibited except with right. I.e. for example, the person who committed adultery who, you know, who is married—truth discussed. And whoever is killed in oppression—we have certainly given for his walī (close relative) authority. فَلَا يُسْرِفْ فِي الْقَاتِلِ So don’t let that person exceed in the killing, by killing more than the person who killed, like as in retribution and vigilantism and so on.
This person will certainly be aided. This doesn't mean that the sulṭān that is given here—that the walī of the person who is killed—just takes his sword out and goes and finds the killer and kills them. This is actually the law of either carrying the punishment or forgiving the punishment.
Because we know that the walī of the person who is killed is given a choice of three things in a case of murder. Now, bear in mind, Islam distinguishes between murder and what is typically called manslaughter—or what in America they call first-degree murder and second-degree murder, and so on.
Like accidental murder?
Yeah, murder where it's not... And Islam actually puts very stringent descriptions and rules as to what constitutes murder, for which a person can lose their life, and what constitutes, you know, what is called second-degree murder or accidental killing or manslaughter—where a person has taken actions which resulted in the loss of life of a person but doesn't reach the level of murder.
So in the second-degree one, where it doesn't reach the level of murder, the punishment is blood money. And it is that blood money is taken, and the person doesn't lose their life for that.
There are actually three degrees of killing in Islam. There is accidental killing. There is probably—what I would term—a good word for it is manslaughter or sort of something which sits between murder and accidental killing. It's not completely accidental, nor does it match the standards of murder. And that one—there is a higher amount of blood money in it.
The one for which a person loses their life is what we typically call first-degree murder, or sort of the deliberate and conscious killing of the person. That is the one where the person—now the walī has three choices, right?
The first choice is to demand a life for a life. Which is not the life of anyone by the way. It's not the life of your gang member or your tribe—the life of the person who killed.
And in terms of how that life is taken, there are two opinions among the scholars. One is that it is simply taken by the sword—and it’s beheading—which proves what you were saying earlier: that existed at the time.
The other is that it's taken by mumāthalah—in other words, that what they did to kill the other person is done to them unless it would be ḥarām. So obviously, there are things that are outright prohibited that could not be—it would never be Islamically allowed to do—those cannot be done by mumāthalah, as in: "You did it to them, we do it to you."
But for example, if they—let's say—shot the person, then they would be shot. If they stabbed the person, then they would be stabbed. If they, you know, beheaded the person, they would be beheaded, and so on. That's one opinion. And one opinion is that they are simply killed by the sword.
Now, the second choice they have is to take blood money—even for murder. So this is the family. Because ultimately, that person who died—that person who died has passed on. Their matter now is with Allah—for Allah to reward them and for Allah to replace for them what was taken away from them. But what is left? The grieving family who’ve lost somebody—who’ve had someone taken away prematurely, taken away from them by this act of murder.
So they can choose to take blood money. So it's their choice, not the government. It's their choice. And they can also choose to forgive completely.
And there are instances where they—I’ve personally seen with my own eyes—people wait until almost the moment of execution and forgive the person. And say that, “I wanted the person to really appreciate the... I wanted the lesson to be learnt. But ultimately, I don't feel that—I don't want that person to lose their life.”
So that is down to the walī. And that's the sulṭān which is mentioned in the āyah. That’s what is meant—not the sulṭān of taking your sword out and going looking for the guy to cut off his head.
You’ve said that a couple of times now. You mentioned the ḥadīth earlier about stealing an egg. And you said, “What’s meant here is not this, but it’s this.” According to whose understanding? Like, where are you getting...?
So we have to take this from the ḥadīth. Okay. We have to take this from the ḥadīth. We have to take it from the adillah. So for example, in the stealing of the egg, we know that an egg—and that's a gold egg—doesn't reach rubaʿ dīnār. It doesn't reach the minimum amount. So here it's not possible that a person could steal an egg on its own and lose their hand, because it doesn't reach the ḥadīth. And we have to reconcile all the aḥādīth together, all the āyāt together. It doesn't reach rubaʿ dīnār—it doesn't reach a quarter of a golden dīnār. So now there has to be another reason.
So now we go to the statements of the scholars, and we ask: how did they understand this ḥadīth? How did they reconcile between this, and between the fact that it is a matter which is clearly understood in Islam— That a person cannot have this punishment carried out for something which is less than that value.
And generally, what I believe to be the proper or the stronger opinion in this Is that it talks about the consequences— That somebody steals an egg, and then tomorrow they steal something else, and then the next day and the next day— Until it reaches a point where they start stealing things of value, And then the consequence of stealing that egg is that they ended up with the punishment carried out upon them.
In terms of here—the sulṭān that is mentioned here—again the principle that we have, That the ḥudūd are the job of the walī al-amr. That's the walī al-amr’s job.
And if we look at just the example of the ṣaḥābah, the khulafāʾ al-rāshidīn, If we look at the example of the Prophet ﷺ, We see that the walī al-amr—either himself or appointing someone—to carry that out. But it’s not the case that we have vigilantism in the religion of sulṭān.
You have statements of—like at the time of the Prophet ﷺ— ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, when something happened, he said: "Let me chop his head off." He's not the government. Okay, who is he asking? He's asking the Prophet ﷺ. He's asking the one who is in responsibility—the walī al-amr. "O Messenger of Allah, you are the ruler here. Give me permission to carry out this punishment upon this person."
Do you think that there’s any kind of justification for people who might be Muslims— They read these āyāt and aḥādīth, they come across these punishments, And obviously with your knowledge, you know that this is not in their hands, it’s not meant for them to carry out— But they come across these āyāt and aḥādīth and they just carry out like acts of terrorism, for example, on the street, Based on these misunderstandings of these āyāt—like do you see how people can fall into this?
I think that whenever Islam is not implemented properly, And whenever people don’t take Islam from its proper sources, There is a danger of the rulings of Islam being misinterpreted and misunderstood. And I think that's just as true in Christianity, and it’s just as true in Judaism, And there are plenty of examples of that throughout history.
The act of committing acts of terror is in itself something for which there is a prescribed punishment in Islam. Allah—as we just said— The punishment of those people who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and they cause corruption in the earth— This includes like the highway robber. It includes the banditry. It includes people who commit huge acts of terror, and so on and so forth:
أَن يُقَتَّلُوا — that they be killed, أَو يُصَلَّبُوا — or crucified, أَو تُقَطَّعَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَأَرْجُلُهُم مِّنْ خِلَافٍ — or their hands and feet cut off from opposite sides, أَو يُنفَوْا مِنَ الْأَرْضِ — or expelled from the earth.
The scholars mentioned that each one is according to the severity of the crime. And with the right to the crucifixion, they differed over whether it's done before the person is killed or whether it’s done after— In a way of showing people the severity of this. Because this is one of the worst kinds of crimes— The crimes that sort of tear at the fabric of the safety of the society. Like banditry, people kidnapping people from the streets, robbing—armed robberies where people, you know, stop people who are traveling on a road and rob them or try to kill them. And likewise terrorism—anywhere—people, you know, really tear at the fabric of the safety of society and destroy, you know, the lives of many people. Those people—that's one of the most severe punishments that exists in Islam.
So I think ultimately everything can be misused. You know, we see even—you know—things that are sort of considered to be basic, sort of, you know, teachings in Western countries and so on, We see groups, extreme groups, come and misuse those teachings. We see in Christianity, extreme groups come and misuse the teaching of Christianity and use it for violence.
Islam—every time Islam mentions, for example, jihād, or Islam mentions fighting of any kind— Islam typically, always, you find a clear instruction in the same āyah or the following āyah not to go to extremes:
وَقَاتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ وَلَا تَعْتَدُوا ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ "Fight those people who fought against you"—not fight innocent men and women and children on the streets. Fight the people who fought against you. وَلَا تَعْتَدُوا—don’t go over the limits. Don’t go over the limits that are set by Allah.
And that's a standard feature of whenever verses mention fighting, mention killing. And bear in mind, this fight and killing is that which is done under the banner of the ruler, i.e. an organized army that is organized and that is given their instructions from the walī al-amr—not vigilantism again. They are told: don’t go to extremes.
The Prophet ﷺ told them not to kill the child, Not to kill the woman, Not to break down the monasteries and the churches and the synagogues where people are worshipping Allah— To leave the people alone, Not to cut down the trees, and so on and so forth.
Islam came with regulations for this that supersede and are better than any existing regulations right now. Look at the, you know, all this thing about the Geneva Convention and the rules of war and so on— Islam established fair and just rules of fighting, And strongly tells everybody that when you fight, you don't go to extremes. You don’t go over the limits. Allah does not love the people who go over the limits that they’ve been set.
And I think that, again, you know, the fact that Islam contains these things is problematic for some people. But they have to understand that Islam is a complete way of life.
Have you ever seen a government—apart from, we’re talking about maybe the government of a tiny little island somewhere— But a significantly sized government that doesn’t have an army?
At the end of the day, we’re talking about governments here. We’re talking about a country that has a legitimate army. The difference being that that army is given religious instruction, not political instruction.
Political instruction: “Oh, go and do what you want. You kill these people. You know, I want you to make an example of them.” There’s no political instruction for fighting.
Instructions—religiously—you are not allowed to do this. Religiously, you’re not allowed to do that. Your purpose for fighting is a religious purpose, not a political purpose— Not because I want to have double the land that I have right now.
It is a purpose of making the word of Allah the highest, And the word of those who disbelieve the lowest. Stop it for a whole podcast in shāʾ Allāh. But it is really important to understand that the concept of fighting existing within Islam Is actually something which provides safeguards that don’t exist.
And honestly, if you were to look at armies around the world today— And I want you to look at professional armies, like the likes of the United States, UK, Australia— These are countries that have professional armies with laws that govern what their soldiers do. The abuses from those soldiers have been significant and consistent— Not one-off. They have been regular and consistent, time and time again, in war after war. They’ve been convicted in their own courts of doing so.
So this is something really that, ultimately, people who are fighting need religious guidance. It’s not barbaric. It’s that you say to people, That you say to somebody when you go out and fight— First of all, that this is done as part of a legitimate army that is organized, And that is given its instruction from the government of that Muslim country.
Secondly, that you, under no circumstances—whether your commander tells you, Or your governor tells you, or the ruler tells you— Are you to kill innocent men, women, and children who are not people who are not fighting against you. You are not to attack people who are worshipping Allah in their private places of worship, And so on and so forth.
That to me is something which we should be proud of, Not something that we should be running away from and hiding behind.
The fact that people may abuse that—I think, to be honest— People will look for any justification to do something. And anytime Islam is not implemented properly, it’s open to— It’s never the fault of Islam. It’s the implementation of the people.
Absolutely. And it’s our job to educate people about that, and to stop that from happening. And that’s—I believe it’s important.
You know, I’m not a person who thinks that we should shy away from the problems that are existing in our Ummah today, With young kids who fall into extremism and so on. We need to go out and tackle that. We need to show them that this is wrong. And we need to show them the evidences from the Qur’ān and the Sunnah, And the actions of the companions, which prove to us that this is not a part of Islam. And when we do that, and we publicize it, and we say so openly— That will naturally decrease the number of people who go down that route.
Okay, let’s go back to the issue of murder. What kind of conditions are in place here to make sure there’s no miscarriage of justice or any of those other things?
So again, we go back to the same principle— That any kind of shubha—so you’ve mentioned this a few times— That this doubt, this issue of doubt— Any kind of doubt means that the prescribed punishment is...
Who’s in charge of identifying whether this is a doubt or this is not a doubt? So there are two things—
First of all, you have the Sharīʿah as a whole—as a legislation— With the Islamic law, which gives us a framework and principles within which to work. And you have a judge who is responsible for looking at this case, And who is responsible for taking submissions from people.
So for example, the person comes and says, "I did not, you know, I did not do this," Or, "I don't believe this happened," Or, "I was not sane at the time," or you know, anything like that.
For example, someone claims insanity— Of course, the judge is going to look into the reality of that. They’re going to take medical testimony. They’re going to look into the reality of whether that person was sane or insane.
But that is a shubha at the end of the day. That’s a—it needs to be investigated. It needs to be investigated. Because if it is true that the person was not in possession of their full faculties, Then we can’t carry out the ḥadd upon them.
There can be the potential of taʿzīr—of discretionary punishment— But there can’t be it— There can’t be the, you know, the prescribed punishment—can’t be carried out.
I think one of the limits that we have— The limiting factors we have in cases of murder— Is that we have the three levels. The fact that not everyone who is killed is considered to be of this high level of murder that entails qiṣāṣ, that entails retribution.
But instead, it depends on what was intended.
So let's give an example. You have accidental killing. So accidental killing is something where the person didn’t take any steps to kill that person, But the end result was that the person died.
You know, so it could be, for example, you’re driving your car and someone runs over— Driving your car— But you're not driving your car— I mean, this issue of driving the car dangerously is one that needs some looking into— But you’re driving the car in a, you know, fairly normal way, And you hit somebody, And at the end of the day, you result—you caused them to die. But you didn’t murder them. Accidental killing is one level.
But the next level up is this kind of—I don’t know how to frame it— In between that and murder, You know, semi-accidental, Is where a person might, for example— To give an example: someone goes to actually hurt somebody, But they aim to hurt someone with something that usually it would not be expected to cause them to die. You know, it wouldn’t be expected that they cause them to die.
For example, let’s just say they, you know, they punched them a few times. You know, they wanted to hurt them, But they didn’t do so in a way that you would expect that person to die. But the person died. Okay.
So now, this is the next level up. This is the next level up.
Murder—even if a person was to say, "I didn’t intend to kill them," But they took steps that would be expected to result in someone’s death— For example, they stabbed someone to death, And he said, "Well, I didn’t intend to kill him. I just intended to hurt him. I wanted to stab him just a couple of times, and hurt him—he died."
Sorry, but when you pulled a knife out and you stabbed that person, You did something that is expected typically to result in someone’s death. That is quite conceivable. That is considered to be murder in Islam of the highest degree— Even if the person’s final intention was not to actually kill that person, But it was to cause them severe harm. But they did so with something which is expected to kill somebody.
Like, they shot them. And they said, "I was only trying to shoot him in the leg, or in the arm, or something." But ultimately, you pull the gun out, you pull the trigger— You know what typically happens when you shoot a person, Is that there is a high chance that that person is going to die. Then that is considered to be— That makes sense. That’s considered to be murder.
What about the issue of witnesses? Does that play a part in murder?
Absolutely. Witnesses are a part of all of the Islamic punishments. And the Islamic legal system is—you have to have witnesses. And we said that zināʾ has an extremely high standard of witness— To the point where it almost has no existence.
As for the others, then it requires—typically, even in the issue of stealing and others— It requires two witnesses That are considered to be of sound mind, Of suitable level of religious practice, People who are known to be truthful, People who have no ulterior motives, and so on and so forth.
So yeah, there are—witnesses are also required.
And again, if there aren’t any witnesses— And this is really interesting, Because how does Islam see things like CCTV, and DNA, and forensics, and things like that?
Typically, this is considered not to be of the level of a witness. But it’s considered to be a supporting evidence for something. And that, you know, people sometimes turn around and say that that is, you know, such a— "Why? You know, why? We’ve got these scientific methods—why are these not primary?
That poor victim—that they’ve gone through this—clearly, You can see it on TV. Why are they not primary?
We are now starting to see in our time the dangers of relying upon those as primary evidences. Miscarriages of justice where DNA was contaminated, Deep fake videos where videos are not done properly, Or where they're misrepresented, Or where it didn’t show the person— A lot of miscarriages of justice are coming from that.
So Islam doesn’t say the person will not be punished, But they will not have the ḥadd carried out. What they will have is—if the judge believes there is a sufficient amount of evidence around that, In terms of things like CCTV and DNA and so on— Then the judge may carry out a discretionary punishment, But the ḥadd will not be done.
And I think that if you were to look at— Even though in the beginning when these things came out, People believed they were the answer to everything— I think if you look now, We’ve seen significant numbers of miscarriages of justice around these areas, Which do make sense that they should fall under discretionary punishment rather than the ḥadd.
And the ḥadd really has a very high standard of proof.
But isn’t there an argument that the same thing could occur with two human beings? The eye could be flawed. They could be seeing something that they thought they genuinely did see— They’re two witnesses— But they didn’t see it quite right.
And I suppose that would be the doubt. That would be the doubt. And also it’s the judge’s job to make sure that this is investigated properly.
The point is that Islam put a very, very high standard— Higher typically than what I would say exists in modern legal systems. The standard of proof or the burden of proof in Islam is typically higher than most modern legal systems. And the reason for that is, again, because the emphasis is on deterrence, And to reduce the number of miscarriages of justice.
Because that is a major argument. Many of the people who have concerns over these punishments— Their biggest concern are miscarriages of justice.
And if we can reduce the number of miscarriages of justice— Obviously, Allah subḥānahu wa taʿālā will— Allah ʿazza wa jal will recompense a person on the Day of Resurrection. There’s no doubt about that.
But we want to make it a system whereby there are extremely small numbers of miscarriages of justice. You know, as minimal as possible. To make it such that people have confidence in the wisdom behind these punishments.
Okay, let’s move on to another topic where— It’s considered to be not a crime for many, many people. And that is the issue of apostasy. Someone being a Muslim, changing their mind effectively, And leaving the religion.
What’s the ruling on this? So there’s no doubt that the punishment for apostasy is death. It’s capital— It’s a crime that is considered to be worthy of capital punishment.
And I think there are a couple of things that you need to bear in mind. I think it’s—what really interests me about apostasy and the punishment for apostasy is: Who would actually have this punishment carried out upon them?
Okay, so let’s say a person decides that, "I no longer want to be a Muslim." Okay.
First of all, what is the punishment that person is going to get on the Day of Resurrection? It’s huge. Eternal punishment—Hellfire. Yeah, we all agree on that.
I would say having a severe punishment in this world Is a significant blessing and mercy in comparison to what the punishment is in the Hereafter— In terms of discouraging people from going down this road.
But let’s keep on this topic— Individual makes that decision personally. What are they going to do? They decide, "I’m going to leave this Muslim country. I can’t live here anymore." They decide to leave. They privately get on a plane. They go to a non-Muslim country. And they live happily ever after— Until the punishment of Allah comes upon them. And that’s their issue.
What if they’ve got family in a Muslim country?
They want to remain there. They want to live their life like a normal citizen. So they live their life like a normal citizen, But they don’t publicize their beliefs.
You're going to see what I'm coming to in a second. Yeah.
Okay, but they’re eating during Ramadan, And people are saying, "Why?" You know, it's a difficult life to live. You have to pretend to be a Muslim. Yeah, difficult life to live.
The other person publicizes it, Invites other people to it, Says publicly that, "I have renounced my religion." Like the Munāfiqūn used to do as well— In the time of the Prophet ﷺ— Where one of the phases they went through Was they went through a phase of telling people that they were Muslim, And then at the end of the day they would say to the people, "We’ve renounced our religion," In order to make other people renounce their religion.
This is the one who you expect the punishment of apostasy will be carried out upon.
Okay, I want to go into two questions there.
First of all, you mentioned—which me and you would both agree— That the punishment from Allah after death on the Day of Judgment Is eternal Hellfire for this person.
How would you approach this conversation with a non-Muslim Who doesn’t necessarily believe in that, Yet you’re still advocating for this huge punishment for apostasy in this world?
I think that ultimately you have to take this discussion In the context of the whole of the religion of Islam. I don’t think you can take this discussion out of the religion of Islam And the existence of God and the right of Allah to legislate. I don’t think you can just take this out of there and keep it on its own.
You have to have muqaddimāt. You have to make the person—the person has to understand The existence of God, the law of God, The right of God to be worshipped alone, The crime of making a partner with God. And that has to be there.
Otherwise, you’re trying to have a discussion based on no foundation. There is nothing you agree upon.
Because, "I don’t believe God exists, So why is there a punishment for apostasy?" That’s like saying, "I don’t believe that murder is wrong. Why is there a punishment for murder?"
Like, at the end of the day, We have to have some kind of common ground that we stand upon.
Okay, the second question I have is that you mentioned That the person who makes a private, personal decision That, "I no longer believe in this religion"— As long as they don’t go out publicizing it, I don’t see how the punishment would be—how would they be discovered?
My point in this is not actually that they shouldn’t be deserving of the punishment. I believe they’re deserving of it. It’s actually that I believe that really the person this is being— That this is really targeted towards Is to stop the spread of apostasy in society.
This is a bit narrow— That you were a fīr yourself, And you were previously a Christian. Okay. And you were living in a non-Muslim country.
And then you decided that Islam is the truth. And you’ve gone on to publicize that And even call people towards it. And imagine if that was the rule in Christianity. Yeah. Where would you be?
Where would I be? I wouldn’t be— I’ve announced my Islam in that country.
I would have quietly made my way out to a nice Muslim country And then stood, you know, on the minbar yawm al-jumʿah And said to everyone, "I’ve become a Muslim." And I’m not going back to that country Because those people are going to execute me for choosing the truth.
I mean, I don’t think you can compare Islam to anything else, But I do see where you’re coming from. But I just personally—here in this issue of apostasy— I really think that when you see the wisdom Of what this does to the whole society, And the severity of this crime, And the severity of what it leads to, And the need for deterrence, The need for retribution, And the safeguard— The fact that this guy is caught And then just the punishment is carried out— You know, that opens up to some questions.
But the fact that they’re given an option to recant, to repent, And they still persist with it— I think, you know, a person—
If it was the other way around in Christianity— You've got two choices: Either you die as a martyr, Or either you keep it quiet and get out of the country.
And what did the ṣaḥābah do in Makkah When they were under threat of being killed for choosing their religion? Some of them sacrificed themselves, And some of them concealed their Islam until they could leave.
I think that is reasonable when this law is publicized and known about.
So how do you reconcile— You say it's publicized and known about— How do you reconcile this With the various āyāt in the Qur'an That seem to go against this?
Like for example: "Lā ikrāha fī al-dīn." "Faman shā'a falyu'min waman shā'a falyakfur." "If whoever wants to believe, let them believe. Whoever wants to disbelieve, let them disbelieve." "Lakum dīnukum wa liya dīn."
All of these āyāt that suggest That it's okay to have different belief systems.
So that's not what those āyāt suggest. But let's take them one by one.
This statement of Allah عز وجل: "Faman shā'a falyu'min waman shā'a falyakfur." This statement is a statement of tawbeekh—it's a rebuke. That whoever wants to believe, let them believe— And let them have the consequences of their belief. And whoever wants to disbelieve, let them disbelieve— And let them have the consequences of their disbelief Fī al-dunyā wal-ākhirah—in this world and the next.
It's not approval.
Okay, how do you know that it’s not approval? Because Allah عز وجل: "Lā yarḍā liʿibādihil-kufr." Allah عز وجل is not content for His slaves to disbelieve. He's not pleased for His slaves to disbelieve.
Is there a clear-cut āyah in the Qur'an That says Islam is the only religion?
"Inna al-dīna ʿinda Allāhi al-Islām." "Wa man yabtaghi ghayra al-Islām dīnan, falan yuqbala minhu, wa huwa fī al-ākhirati mina al-khāsirīn."
So you have to understand those verses in light of the clear ones.
As for "Lā ikrāha fī al-dīn"— This is actually something which again is completely true. Some of the ʿulamāʾ said this āyah is mansūkhah— It’s been abrogated by the āyāt of jihād and so on. However, the correct opinion is that it’s not abrogated.
This āyah, "Lā ikrāha fī al-dīn"— "There is no compulsion in religion"— Is not saying that there will not be consequences For the religion that you choose, or the choices that you make.
But that ultimately, nobody can— Or if you were compelled to accept a religion, That wouldn’t be accepted by Allah. Ikhlāṣ is a condition of "Lā ilāha illa Allāh", right?
So if it’s compelled— And that’s why people are not compelled. There is no compelling.
And that’s why the ḥadīth of the Prophet ﷺ: "Umirtu an uqātila al-nās." It doesn’t say: "Umirtu an aqtula al-nās." "I was commanded to slaughter the people."
"I was commanded to fight against the people." They’re given an option— Either you accept Islam.
If they are from the Jews, the Christians, and some other groups, They’re given the option to pay the jizyah, To live under the Muslim army’s protection, And to have their religion as it is. Or they’re given the option to fight.
That is an option that’s given to them. Nobody is saying to them, "Become Muslim!"— Meaning a person is forced into Islam like that.
Rather, a person has consequences. That’s a different aspect. A person chooses not to be Muslim— There are consequences to that In the dunyā and in the ākhirah.
But that isn’t compulsion. Ultimately, if a person was compelled to accept a religion, That wouldn’t be accepted from them.
You have to accept Islam freely. You have to choose.
And the last āyah: "Lakum dīnukum wa liya dīn." The popular āyah.
What is this meaning? "To your religion, and to us our religion."
This is explaining the difference, Or the distinguishing or the barā’ah— The freedom of the Muslim, The disassociation of the Muslim from other religions.
It’s not permitting them like that, "It's okay to have your religion." That’s not what it says.
"You have your religion, I have my religion"— It’s distinct from your religion.
And then simply just look at the first āyāt: "Qul yā ayyuhā al-kāfirūn, Lā aʿbudu mā taʿbudūn, Wa lā antum ʿābidūna mā aʿbud, Wa lā ana ʿābidum mā ʿabadtum, Wa lā antum ʿābidūna mā aʿbud."
All of the tafsīr of the āyah is found in the first āyāt: "I'm not going to worship what you worship. You don't worship what I worship." You and me— We’re not on the same page when it comes to religion.
"Lakum dīnukum wa liya dīn."
And not that you are permitted to have your religion. There’s a difference between what Allah عز وجل allowed qadaran, In terms of His qadar, irādah kawniyyah, qadariyyah— That Allah عز وجل decreed— And what Allah عز وجل loves.
Allah عز وجل does not love for His servants to disbelieve.
Does that make sense? Yeah, okay.
I want to move the discussion to a topic That is linked closely to the issue of apostasy— And that is blasphemy.
What does the Sharīʿah say about people Who insult the Prophet ﷺ, For example— Or Allah, or the religion of Islam?
So insulting the Prophet ﷺ Is a ḥadd from the ḥudūd of Allah عز وجل. And it is like apostasy— It is an example of capital punishment.
But here the scholars distinguish between two things. They say that in apostasy, There is a mas’alah— The tawbah of the murtad— Is it accepted or not?
Is a person given a chance to repent or not, When they apostatize—when they leave Islam? Are they given a chance to repent or not?
The person who commits insulting the Prophet ﷺ— Blaspheming and insulting the Prophet ﷺ— This person has done two things.
First of all, they have committed riddah—apostasy— If they were Muslim. But there is a second aspect to it, which is different. And that is the ḥaqq of the Prophet ﷺ— The right of the Prophet ﷺ.
Now we know the Prophet ﷺ— What he sacrificed personally for the religion of Islam— And that his right is higher than the right of anyone else.
And we also know that Islam gave rights to individuals. So for example, Islam gave the right of Punishments to be carried out against people Who insult other people, for example.
As an example—accusing someone falsely, Accusing someone of adultery— Islam has a system of preventing these things from taking place.
But the right of the Prophet ﷺ Is greater than anyone else's right.
And typically, the system of Islam—generally speaking— Is that forgiveness has to come from Ṣāḥib al-Ḥaqq— The person whose right was violated.
Forgiveness has to come from the person who was insulted. The Prophet ﷺ has passed away. His honor has to be preserved and protected for a religious benefit— Let alone for a personal benefit.
Not just for him—for himself— And what he did for this ummah, But also in terms of the religious danger behind that— And how that could lead to spreading apostasy— All the things we said about apostasy: How it spreads in the society, and so on and so forth.
But the Prophet ﷺ has that right personally— That Allah عز وجل gave him that personal right.
So now, without having a means to forgiveness From the Ṣāḥib al-Ḥaqq— It's not possible.
Now, the person who the crime was committed against Is not able to forgive that person.
So in this case, the punishment has a different aspect from apostasy. That’s why the scholars differed over the issue of tawbah Of the person who insults the Prophet ﷺ— They insult him, and then they make tawbah from that.
I think it’s a very public statement of defiance. It’s not something which, again, is done privately.
And we’ve discussed that in apostasy— We’ll not go back around that discussion again— But we had discussed the issue of the fact It’s a very public statement.
And it’s a very deliberate attempt To personally attack the Prophet ﷺ.
He has a right that is given to him by Allah عز وجل. That right is more than deserving, If we look at his position in terms of what he’s done for this religion— And his position in terms of being the best of mankind.
And the fact that Islam gives similar rights In terms of the right for your honor to be protected, The right for you not to be ridiculed and insulted— Is given to everybody in society— Muslim, non-Muslim— Who are living within that Muslim society anyway.
The fact that his right is a level above that Is again fairly consistent, in terms of that.
It does have an aspect of riddah in it— It does overlap with apostasy. But it is different, Because at the end of the day— It’s not only an act of disbelief— Whether it’s done by a Muslim or a non-Muslim— It’s not only an act of disbelief And an open act of defiance, But it’s also a crime against an individual— Not just a crime against Allah.
And a crime against an individual Typically has to be forgiven by the individual.
So that’s the reason why there’s a difference here Between apostasy— Of someone entering into Islam and then leaving it.
Whereas this blasphemous act could occur from a non-Muslim, I really want to emphasize in blasphemy— We have seen cases where the accusation is That blasphemy laws are misused In particular countries in order to punish minorities.
And this is something that Islam— If it is true (and I don’t make any judgment about it)— It’s not for me to sit here and make a judgment About whether that’s actually true or not— But Islam does not in itself approve of, Or allow for, the misuse of blasphemy law.
Like, in other words, for someone to just say: “Oh, I heard my neighbor say this,” or something like that. And we mentioned that several times.
The issue of tawbah is an issue which the scholars differed over. Is it allowed? And they differed over the murtad as well.
The problem is, if we go into too many differences, We might be here a long time.
There are differences of opinion About whether this person’s tawbah is accepted or not.
As for the likes of Ka‘b ibn al-Ashraf, for example, And the Prophet ﷺ commanding for him to be killed— This is something where the Sahaba took permission From the Prophet ﷺ.
So I want to be clear: there’s no vigilantism here. They took permission. The Prophet ﷺ said, “Who will take care of Ka‘b ibn al-Ashraf?”
Now bear in mind— As the leader of the country— And I really want to put this in context:
As a leader of a country, aside from religion— For him to put a bounty on the head of someone Is not something unfamiliar to us— Even in modern times.
In terms of leaders of countries and heads of government saying: “This person—there is a bounty placed on their head.” “We, as a government, are seeking to find this person And to carry out an act of capital punishment.”
That is something that is not actually strange, to be honest. It’s something where—pick your country— The United States and many others— Many of them do this on a fairly regular basis.
The difference in Islam is that there is a reason for it And there is a framework.
It’s not just for someone to get up one morning and say: “Get rid of this guy because he’s my political opponent.” “Get rid of this guy.”
This is something which has a religious framework And a religious reasoning— And that is actually a safeguard rather than a cause for abuse.
Yeah, and I think that safeguard is definitely in place there When the Prophet ﷺ himself is the leader of the country— Or the Muslims, for example.
As you go down the generations, And you have people like al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, for example— Do you think that Islam places too much control In the leader of a country And just allows him to do whatever he wants?
I don’t think that al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf Is a good example of a Muslim leader.
I think that the statement of some of the Tābiʿīn, That al-Hajjaj is “the punishment of Allah upon you,” Is sufficient in order to prove That al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf was not a good example.
People fled from his rulership Into the governorship of ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz.
At the same time, some of the people of his time Believed that al-Hajjaj was not a Muslim. They believed he had left Islam.
But we believe the correct opinion Is that al-Hajjaj was a Muslim— He was a person who was ẓālim, He was very oppressive, And he killed a lot of people without right.
And ultimately, he will have to answer to Allah ﷻ for that.
I don’t believe that Islam is responsible for that. I think that Islam itself has all of the relevant rules and restrictions.
But I think this is the nature of Banī Ādam— That human beings—when they oppress others— No doubt, those in power Typically have a greater ability to oppress others.
And that’s why, from the seven who will be shaded Under the throne of Allah on the Day When there is no shade but His— The first one mentioned is:
"Imām al-ʿĀdil" — a just leader.
Because when you have that degree of power, You have an army...
Look at the world today. Look at democratic, liberal countries And the oppression that they do, And the killing that has been done in their name— Extrajudicial killings, and so on and so forth.
This shows us that the most liberal of societies Are not free of this.
I believe that what Islam gives us, ultimately— It gives us justice. It gives us a framework for how we should live.
If we don’t live according to that framework, And we transgress that framework— We will be responsible.
Not just in the dunya— Either in the dunya or—more importantly—in the ākhirah.
So I think—why not? Why don’t we take ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz As our example of how a Muslim ruler should behave?
Of course, there are better examples among the Sahaba— The likes of the Khulafāʾ al-Rāshidīn and Muʿāwiyah, رضي الله تعالى عنهم وأرضاهم.
These are better examples than ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz.
But just to take someone at the same time As al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, We have ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz—
And the fact that in the time of ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, Who implemented Islam— We believe he implemented Islam as it should have been implemented, As the ruler is supposed to behave.
Do you see people walking around without hands? And people being stoned to death every five minutes? And people—you know—this guy lost his head?
To be honest, what you actually see is a time of such safety— Such safety, that— It’s just—when you read the descriptions And the historical reports Of how safe and happy people were in that time— You actually see the value Of the Islamic system of punishments And the Islamic system of justice.
But—when it’s implemented properly— The deterrent is so great That people just don’t commit the crime.
And they said, in the time of ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, People would come with ṣadaqah— To the extent that they couldn’t find anyone to take it.
I mean, forget about theft— They couldn’t even find someone Who would be willing to take their ṣadaqah.
And that is what happens When you implement Islam properly.
And no doubt, in the time of al-Ḥajjāj ibn Yūsuf, There was a great amount of tyranny And a great amount of killing. And that was the result of not implementing the religion properly— As the likes of al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī and others رحمه الله تعالى said.
Okay, we’re coming towards the latter part Of our specific issues that I wanted to discuss.
I do want to just talk generally, As people have a general perception Of Islam being quite a bloodthirsty religion.
And since we’re on the topic of killing, There is a ḥadīth in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī That I would like to read out to you, in shāʾ Allāh:
Allah’s Messenger ﷺ sent us on a mission And said: “If you find so-and-so and so-and-so, burn both of them with fire.”
When we intended to depart, Allah’s Messenger ﷺ said: “I have ordered you to burn so-and-so and so-and-so. And it is none but Allah who punishes with fire. So if you find them—kill them. Don’t burn them, but kill them.”
So here again, I think we can just answer this All in the context of what we said.
We said that now, burning with fire is not permissible— It’s not a permissible method of execution For the Muslim ruler.
And there are some situations, In which there are matters of difference of opinion— In certain limited situations.
But typically, we’re going to say that from this ḥadīth, we’ve taken— That’s not an option.
The option is for the Muslim ruler That they are not allowed to take the life of a person إلّا بالحق — except with right.
So the Prophet ﷺ—he has a right. We know for certain, the Prophet ﷺ doesn’t— The person who is sent "raḥmatan lil-ʿālamīn" (A mercy to all mankind)— Doesn’t command something like that إلّا بالحق — except that there is a right Which Allah has given him to do that.
As the ruler, As the one in authority, As the Prophet ﷺ— With religious and political authority at that time— He has commanded that these two people Have committed a crime, But that they must be punished In a way that is appropriate and allowed in Islam.
So we’ve discussed in detail Those crimes that result in capital punishment.
Okay, final thing I want to move on to is— And I really just want to touch on this Because I think this probably warrants a podcast on its own— And it’s the issue of slavery.
You’ve come to this podcast saying, “I’m so proud of the Sharīʿah. It’s like the perfect, ideal system.”
If that’s the case, Then why did it not abolish slavery?
I think there are two things to look at here— Two very separate things—or three.
The first thing I want to get out of people’s mind Is slavery as we know it today— In Western terms— In what we have learned in history, recent history.
So that’s slavery based on kidnapping people, Based on race, based on color—
That has no place in Islam, And never had any place in Islam.
That is from the slavery of Jāhiliyyah That was practiced before Islam— Where people would be kidnapped and sold into slavery.
This is something which is from the major sins in Islam, And is worthy of severe punishment.
Slavery in Islam is a replacement or an alternative To the system of prisoners of war— That's what it is.
So you're fighting against the people, They're fighting against you— Sword to sword, gun to gun— The fighting takes place between the two armies.
And when one army overcomes the other, Allah ʿAzza wa Jall gave a right To enslave those that remain— All of those that remain.
That is a choice now of the Muslim commander. He has three choices.
—Is that not what happened at the time of the Prophet ﷺ With the issue of Banū Qurayẓah— When the companion said, “We kill all the men and enslave all of the women”?
So let's come to Banū Qurayẓah— We’ll come to Banū Qurayẓah. I want to come to Banū Qurayẓah. I think that’s important. That’s an important topic.
But that is actually not a war. There was no war between the Muslims and Banū Qurayẓah.
We’re talking about now slavery as a result of war. Okay? Okay.
This is effectively what we would call today Being a prisoner of war.
The first thing is— The Muslim commander has three choices:
The first choice is to free them. All of them. Let them all go.
The second choice is to ransom them. That is, to imprison them And to ransom each individual— As was done in the Battle of Badr.
And the third is to enslave them.
When they are enslaved— I want to understand— What I wanted to show you is that People have this idea of slavery...
Abū Hurayrah رضي الله عنه—he said:
“If it wasn’t for jihād and being good to my mother, I would have wished to die as a slave.”
The slave is clothed From the clothing that the person—the owner—has. They're fed. They're not burdened with what they can’t bear.
Now I want you to see Treatment of prisoners of war today, yeah?
Okay, I’m reluctant to give examples— Okay— But let’s just take— And maybe it’s not a great example— But let’s just take Guantanamo As an example of prisoners, you know—
ʿAlā khilāf in between them Whether they’re prisoners of war or whatever— But people who are imprisoned As a result of some sort of fighting That’s going on between— And the treatment that is given.
Let’s look at Japanese prisoners of war In the Second World War— And how they were treated.
Wallāhi, the Islamic system of slavery Is far, far more merciful— Especially when you add a final element:
And that is the encouragement of freeing a slave.
How many sins are there in Islam That the expiation for that sin is: "Fataḥrīru raqabah"—free a slave?
Islam didn’t come to enslave people. Islam came to bring people out of slavery— To other people— And into the slavery of Allah.
That’s what Islam came for.
However— You have to have a system for prisoners of war. What do we do?
We just lock them all up. We lock them all up— And then mistreat them. You know?
As I’m around the world— And I gave the example of America, Not because we’re talking about Muslims— But because we’re talking about A country that prides itself on human rights.
And how— You know, force-feedings And all that type of stuff that takes place.
Or— You bring them into your house. They work for you. You clothe them. You feed them. You look after them. And then you free them— Whenever you mess up.
To be honest— No comparison, really. It really is a system.
But the problem is that this word "slavery" Has been tainted By slavery that was based on kidnapping people, That was based on color, That was based on race.
That slavery was practiced by who? Not by the Muslims.
The Muslims were the ones being enslaved.
You know— How many of those people were taken from Africa And brought over to the States In the time of slavery Were ʿulamāʾ of Islam— Some of them— Scholars of Islam, People who were people of knowledge— Who were kidnapped For no other crime Than the color of their skin.
And they were kidnapped And brought to the United States.
That’s the slavery of the West— Not the slavery of Islam.
— I think that’s fine when you’re talking about prisoners of war, Like you have done. But when I mentioned Banū Qurayẓah, You actually said that This wasn’t a situation of prisoners of war.
— No. Banū Qurayẓah was much worse.
Okay. So you have a situation where The Muslim army—or the Muslims—came to people.
And Saʿd ibn Muʿādh said:
“Enslave their women and children, Kill everyone with pubic hair, And take their wealth And share it amongst the Muslims.”
Yes. And you’re right that in a context of the Muslim leader, He’d have to go for approval— And that’s exactly what he did.
And the Prophet ﷺ said:
“He has ruled by what Allah has sent down, By what Allah judged over above the seven heavens.”
— How do you justify that?
Okay. First of all, let’s understand What Banū Qurayẓah did.
Because it wasn’t a war Between Banū Qurayẓah and between the Muslims.
What Banū Qurayẓah did Is they betrayed the Muslims In the Battle of the Khandaq.
Okay?
So the Battle of the Khandaq Was one of the worst situations The Muslims had to endure.
They had all the armies of the Arabian Peninsula Come against them.
And they had agreements— Oaths and agreements and treaties With various tribes That promised that they would— They would defend the Muslims.
Not only did Banū Qurayẓah break their promise And go back— But they also put the Muslim women and children under threat.
And they opened the option to attack The Muslim women and children Who were protected in Madinah Through their treachery.
Now— This was an act of treachery. It was not a war situation.
This was an act of treachery, And an act of betrayal. An act of treason.
And treason, traditionally, Is one of the strongest punishments.
Even today— In countries which have abolished the death penalty, typically, They haven’t abolished it for treason.
There remains on the legal statutes That treason— To that extent, utter betrayal, And breaking of your treaties and agreements, Especially when it endangers the life of innocent people— Is something which deserves A very severe punishment.
Now I’m going to come to the whole story now.
Now, when the punishment was going to be carried out upon them— These were people who followed the Jewish law.
And the Jewish law was more severe Than what Islam put upon them. And they knew that.
They knew that if they were to be judged By the law of the Torah, That they would actually suffer Worse and more horrific punishment Than what they suffered at the hands of the Muslims.
So what they decided Is that they were not happy For the Prophet ﷺ to decide what happened to them.
So the Prophet ﷺ, as the leader of the Muslims, Agreed on something.
He said:
I want you to appoint your own judge. You choose from among the people Someone who is going to judge What should be done for this treason And this betrayal that you’ve done. And I will agree. I will not intervene.
Okay. So they chose one of their close friends in Jāhiliyyah— Saʿd ibn Muʿādh. He was their close confidant, A close ally of them in Jāhiliyyah.
They said, “Saʿd is not going to let us down here. Saʿd is not going to give us Any of the punishments of the Tawrah.
Saʿd here is going to go easy on us.”
So Saʿd had been wounded in the Battle of the Khandaq, رضي الله عنه, And he was on the verge of death.
They brought him because of this treachery. And they wanted him— And the Prophet ﷺ said, “Okay, I will not intervene. I'm not going to intervene in this judgment. Whatever Saʿd is going to judge for you— As the Muslim ruler, I am going to agree to his judgment. It’s his choice.”
And they said, “Saʿd, you know what was between us in Jāhiliyyah.”
And Saʿd ruled That the males— Adult males among them, not children— The adult males among them be killed.
They’re the ones who fought in the war. They’re the ones who betrayed. All of the adult males were required To fight in the war— That’s how wars work, right?
All the adult males— They were the ones who were killed Because they were the ones Who deliberately peddled that treachery.
Now they have been considered To be at war with us, Because they committed an act of war Against the Muslims.
They opened the Muslim women and children to attack. They opened the Muslims to be attacked By the confederate army from behind.
They betrayed the Muslims in a way That was nothing short of treason.
Now their property becomes war booty for the Muslims— Because now this is an act of war.
So we are going to now treat The innocent among you— Or the ones who were not participating in the war— As prisoners of war, Under the normal rules of prisoners of war, Which we discussed.
Which we discussed Under the normal rules of prisoners of war.
And those who committed the treachery Are going to have to pay the price of treason— Which, the way that they were killed, Is far, far less than what they were expecting From the law of the Tawrah.
When the Prophet ﷺ heard of the judgment of Saʿd— Remember, he’s put his hands up and said, “Whatever Saʿd says, I’m going to go with it. I’m not going to intervene.”
He said:
“You have judged by what Allah judged with Above the seven heavens.”
And this was a judgment That Allah was pleased with. It was a judgment that was in accordance with Islam.
And it’s very important that That remains as a penalty That is visible for people In terms of treason.
And it was a big lesson For the other tribes around In the Arabian Peninsula— That you cannot make a promise Of an oath that you will defend a people, And then break your oath, And be treacherous in your oath.
Because that is something Which put the lives of, really, All of the Muslims in danger.
And it was an act of treason, So it was dealt with as such.
I’m coming towards the end of the questions That I’ve got for you, But I do want to touch on something That we briefly mentioned before.
We spoke about the different methods of capital punishment. And we talked about why not modernize them, When they were— And you said, rightly so, That there were quicker punishments at the time.
But we— Allah still chose to issue This particular punishment Or this particular method.
However, there is a wider discussion That needs to be had— About, we’ve mentioned so much about Murder, and killing, and stoning, And things like that.
Perhaps that was the culture at the time. Perhaps that was the culture at the time For the people at the time.
However, now the world has become, What many people say, Much more civilized.
Is there maybe a push To change some of these punishments Into more modern punishments, And modernize the Sharīʿah?
So I think there’s a couple of answers to that. I think first of all, If you look at the Islamic punishments— We’ll set aside stoning As something we’ve discussed earlier— But primarily the punishment Being carried out by the sword,
That is actually something That is relatively— In fact, out of all of the punishments That are available today in modern times— It’s actually one of the most humane.
And the most— Sort of, in terms of the way it’s carried out, It’s easy to carry out. It doesn’t have very much room for error. It’s relatively quick, And, you know, painless to the person it’s carried out on.
Perhaps— I’m not talking about— So I’m coming to the point you’re talking about, I’m just sort of saying that I don’t, in that sense, See there to be even any reasonable grounds For talking about it.
If you look at the situation With lethal injection right now, If you look at the situation With electrocution and so on— None of those are any better than— In fact, all of them are worse Than what Islam puts forward.
That’s one point.
Now, on this topic of modernizing Shariah— I think that, first of all, One of the things we have to start with Is we have to start with the statement of Allah:
اليوم أكملت لكم دينكم وأتممت عليكم نعمتي ورضيت لكم الإسلام دينًا
“Today I have completed your religion for you, Completed My favor upon you, And chosen for you Islam as your religion.”
What Allah ʿAzza wa Jal chose for us on that day Is for us today.
It’s not for us to modify it, It’s not for us to need to modernize it.
It is the perfect system From Al-Ḥakīm, Al-ʿAlīm, Al-Khabīr.
It doesn’t need to be updated. It doesn’t need to be modernized. It doesn’t need to be changed.
And I would provide an evidence for that Not only from the Shariah point of view, But even from the logical point of view.
It’s what I alluded to at the beginning— Of the failure of modern legal systems To address the problems in society.
It’s quite clear that these modern systems Are not doing the job. They’re just not effective. They’re not doing the job.
And I think that when you bring Islam as a whole— And I keep emphasizing this— We really have shone a light, A very strong light, On the Islamic punishments— Legal punishments, criminal law, and things like that.
That doesn’t show the whole picture of Islam. Islam is not a society Where there’s just a row of people With swords raised above their heads, Waiting to chop things off.
You know, that’s not what Islam is about, And that’s never been what Islam is about.
You have to put that in context— As a necessary deterrent To ensure safety, security, and peace For everyone in the society.
That doesn’t need to change. It doesn’t need to be updated.
In fact, we need to go back to that. We need to go back to punishments That actually make a difference.
Punishments that actually provide Some kind of retribution On behalf of the victim.
Punishments that, more than anything, Stop other people from going into it.
وَلَكُمْ فِي الْقِصَاصِ حَيَاةٌ "And in the law of retribution, there is life for you."
You actually stop people From going down this route.
And also punishments that are not a burden Upon regular people, Where we have to pay for keeping Some really horrific and evil people behind bars— And we have to kind of pay for that.
So I don’t see any logical reason, And I certainly don’t see any Shariah reason, To change what Allah subḥānahu wa taʿālā Has given us.
If anything, We need to go back to that, Implemented properly. When it’s not implemented properly, Then that’s not representative of what Islam has.
HOST: Speaking of going back— Do we not go back to the scholars that preceded us?
For example, there’s the 8th-century Māliki scholar, Abū al-Qāsim al-Burzulī, Who actually called for the replacement of the ḥudūd, As we described them today, With things like financial penalties.
What do you have to say about that?
GUEST: I don’t think that’s actually a correct quote From Abū al-Qāsim al-Burzulī, رحمه الله—Māliki scholar.
I believe what the discussion is— Is what I alluded to earlier About the— Not about financial penalties as a replacement For the ḥudūd— But financial penalties in terms of taʿzīr.
Is it allowed for a judge To implement a financial penalty?
And I did allude earlier to the fact That the jumhūr of the ʿulamāʾ— The majority from the Ḥanafiyyah, The Mālikiyyah, the Shāfiʿiyyah, And the Ḥanābilah—
They held the opinion that it is not permissible— That financial penalties are not a tool That is available to the qāḍī in that sense, Except where there is a clear evidence in Islam for that.
And Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah and others— And among them others from those we’ve quoted— They held the opinion That it is permissible to introduce financial penalties In the aspect of discretionary punishment.
That is what I have understood From what I have read.
I did go through the book today—
And I did look at some of the quotes earlier on, And from what I can see— And again, we can look at this in more research, We can bring it in the Q&A If there are further things to look at—
But what I can see from this is: This discussion is about the use of Discretionary financial punishment, And nothing to do with replacing the ḥudūd.
HOST: What about the argument that the world has changed? Which is evident— I don't think either of us would disagree with that.
The world has changed since then. It has become more cosmopolitan, It has become more multicultural. That inevitably will have an impact On things like apostasy.
Crime has increased— And yeah, crime has increased. People are less safe.
So these kinds of things that have— Even aside from those facts— Which I agree, they are facts. But aside from those,
Even the fact that the technology Has just changed the way we live, And the day-to-day transactions That are taking place nowadays Are just so different.
How can we refer to laws That were based around 7th century Arabia, And still believe that— Despite the world changing so much— That they are still applicable today?
GUEST: So I think there are two things here.
I think, first of all, The fundamentals of human interaction haven’t changed.
Murder is murder. Murder today is murder. We haven’t got to the level where Murder is like someone deleting Your social media account or something like that.
You know, like murder is murder. Zinā is zinā, and so on.
Those fundamentals haven’t changed. And those are fundamental human... They are crimes against humanity On a level of humanity.
And it’s generally, in every society, They are considered to be Really terrible, horrific crimes.
Things like murder, you know, Adultery, fornication, and so on.
That is one aspect.
The second aspect is that, As we’ve mentioned several times, Islam provides a framework For dealing with what we call Nawāzil and Mustaǧidāt.
Now, murder is not a nāzilah. I’m sorry—murder is not something new That turned up yesterday.
Neither is fornication something new. Neither is apostasy something new That turned up last week.
We also talked about the Jewish law of stoning to death For the one who invites someone to another religion, and so on.
This is not something that turned up last week.
These are not nawāzil. They’re not mustaǧidāt. They’re not new issues That need to be looked at In the context or in the framework of Islam.
They’re just simply— Things that were there before, They’re there now, And they have their rulings.
However, if there are nawāzil, Like financial crimes— And we talked about theft being Theft from a place of safety— A ḥirz— A place of safety and security—
What does that represent in terms of bitcoin?
That is a nazila. It's a new issue That needs to be looked at In light of the Islamic evidences, Through things like qawa'id (principles), Qiyas (analogy), Other tools that are available to the mujtahid, In order to determine where this sits, Or what the conditions sit In terms of the laws Under punishments for theft.
When is it a discretionary punishment, And when is it a Had Min hududillahi azzawajal. That is something which is looked at In the framework of what Islam is giving.
Some things, plenty of guidelines. For example, the use of the word hirz. Hirz here in theft Is a place of safety and security. That could be potentially Considered to be as digital As well as physical. Because the word used is broad. But that's for the scholars And the mujtahidun to look at And to analyze And then to apply the rulings of Islam to them.
Islam adapts to changes in the world. Changes in the world are nawazil. Allah azzawajal adapts The religion of Islam to them Through principles And through the tools That are available in ijtihad.
As for things that have always existed And still exist today, Those don't need reform.
Okay, you mentioned in there The principles, And you mentioned something like al-qawa'id al-fiqh, for example. Is it not one of those principles Al-‘adah muhakkamah — That the customs can play an impact on a ruling?
For example, when we talk about The ruling of a woman Not being allowed to travel, Many scholars say that There isn't a set distance. It's rather what the ‘urf, Like the customs of the people, Define as travelling.
So this has a— This has an important principle That comes before it.
Okay. And that is that When you have a nas, You have an evidence, A textual evidence, There is no room For any of the aspects of ijtihad. There is no aspect of Looking at the ‘urf, Because the ‘urf is muhakkamah in that In that which the shari‘ah Did not provide a definition for, Or a limit for, Or a particular ruling for.
In this case, The ‘urf is muhakkamah, no doubt. So we have the principle: There is no right to have— To exercise legal judgment In the face of textual evidence.
So there are things in which Islam left it to ‘urf, And there are things in which Islam did not leave it to ‘urf. And no doubt these hudud— I mean, the very word had— This is something delimited And chosen and fixed.
Okay perfect. I'm going to just move on To some closing questions now, And then I'll give you the chance If you'd like to take it To summarize what we've discussed On this podcast today, inshaAllah.
So the first question I have is that These punishments that we've spoken about, That apply in a Muslim country With a Muslim government— I'm not talking about Necessarily blasphemy Or things like that, But I'm talking about theft, for example.
Do they apply to non-Muslims Living in that land as well?
Yes, the rules of Islam Apply to all those people Who live within that system. I mean, who live in that system.
So yes, it applies to the Ahl al-Dhimma and so on. They may have some specific things That are unique to them. We mentioned the issue of When we go outside of countries, We talk about jizya and things like that. But broadly speaking, The people of Ahl al-Dhimma They live within the rules of Islam, And they have the safety That the Muslims are entitled to In terms of safety, security, protection, and so on.
Okay, would you advocate For Sharia law in the UK?
I believe that the Islam against Sharia law Is a very negative— It’s a term that has a very negative connotation. I believe that the religion of Islam Being implemented in the UK Would bring nothing but good To the people of the UK.
It would bring an increase in people’s Safety and security. It would bring happiness to people. It would make people’s hearts Have tranquility, Because the Sharia is all of that. It’s the remembrance of Allah, It’s the prayer, It’s fasting, It’s also about having strong punishments That deter people from crimes.
I believe that it would bring nothing but good To any place, In anywhere in the world.
Okay, I want to thank you for your time, first of all, And give you the opportunity— If you’d like to summarize what we discussed, Feel free, inshaAllah.
Yeah, I think there are just a few things That I would like to sort of Just bring people’s attention back to.
I think, first of all, That the Sharia is more than just punishments. I think that when we use the word Sharia For punishments, We really give the impression That there isn’t anything in Islam Apart from punishing people for crimes. And really, it’s a tiny, tiny part Of the religion of Islam.
And it’s an important part, But it’s a tiny, tiny part. And to look at that alone Is really to give— To make an imbalance, And it makes it seem like Muslims Have no other concern except this.
Really, the goal here, As we’ve mentioned many times, Is deterrence, first of all— Deterrence and stopping people. One person goes through it, A hundred people are saved because of it.
The second thing is that There has to be appropriate retribution for crimes. There has to be a means of rehabilitation through Iman— Rehabilitation in this dunya, And in the Akhirah through Iman.
Yes, there are times When someone has to be incapacitated. They have to be taken away From the ability to commit crimes again.
And there are also issues of restoration— Like things like blood money, Whereby the family of the victim Actually receives some kind of compensation And restoration for the crime That has been committed against them.
These are all things that are recognized In Western legal systems as being important. But I believe that only Islam Brings those things together And balances between them With the wisdom— That is the infinite wisdom That Allah Subh’anaHu Wa Ta-A‘la has.
I would say that it’s a big topic. I would say that It’s difficult to cover everything in one topic. So I would say that If there are areas where we need to expand upon, We should do so. If there are things people would like to look into more about, They should do so.
Because this is my best ability To sort of just explain and clarify. But ultimately, Whatever I say that is correct Is a blessing from Allah ‘azzawajal, And whatever I said that’s wrong, Then Allah Subh’anaHu Wa Ta-A‘la And His Messenger ﷺ And the religion of Islam Has nothing to do with that.
So it is important that we give that disclaimer. And otherwise, I think that The more people look into this With a balanced sort of approach And an open mind, They’ll actually find that this, Like every part of Islam, Is from the maḥāsin of Islam— The beautiful qualities of Islam— By which Islam is distinct from others, By which Islam brings to society What nothing else can bring.
