Akbar Jamal
Part 1
When oppression is committed against a person on an individual and personal level, whether his character, his life, his property, or his honor is targeted, Islamic sharia gives him, before anything else, “the basic right to repel the attacker and defend himself.” According to an established principle of Islamic fiqh, if someone wrongfully attacks another person’s self or property, the wronged person has the right to begin from the lightest method and, in a gradual manner, to the extent necessary, defend himself, and to protect himself by inflicting harm on the attacker up to the limit permitted by sharia.
As is understood from Hadith No. 1421 of Jami’ al-Tirmidhi, in the light of the clear guidance of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), whoever is killed while defending his right, his life, or his property attains, according to sharia, the rank of “martyr.” In addition, sharia also gives the oppressed person permission to openly raise his voice against the oppressor, to expose his wrongdoing, and to demand, for himself, compensation equal to the wrong done to him, that is, qisas or financial compensation. As Allah (SWT) says in the Quran: “Allah does not like the public mention of evil except by one who has been wronged.” (Surah al-Nisa: 148)
But sharia has also set very precise and clear limits on this matter of individual rights. The right given to the wronged person to take compensation or defend himself is bound only to the limit of “equivalence and not exceeding the bound.” Meaning the wronged person may take compensation from the oppressor only to the extent of the very wrong that was done to him, no more than the harm inflicted upon him. Exceeding this measure by even a little itself becomes, according to sharia, oppression and transgression.
As stated in Surah al-Shura, verse 40:
«وَجَزَاءُ سَيِّئَةٍ سَيِّئَةٌ مِّثْلُهَا ۖ فَمَنْ عَفَا وَأَصْلَحَ فَأَجْرُهُ عَلَى اللَّهِ ۚ إِنَّهُ لَا يُحِبُّ الظَّالِمِينَ»
“And the retribution for an evil act is an evil one like it, but whoever pardons and makes reconciliation – his reward is [due] from Allah. Indeed, He does not like wrongdoers.”
The second important point is that the right to take compensation or mete out punishment on an individual level does not mean that the wronged person may break the law on his own authority; rather, adherence to permission and to the sharia procedure is necessary for this. For the establishment of justice, and so that taking revenge does not turn into personal madness, the final decision is entrusted to a sharia judge or the judicial system, so that society does not turn into a field of personal enmities and disorder.
In this way sharia gives the individual wronged person full sharia justification to defend himself and demand justice; but along with this it binds him to set limits and conditions, so that the chain of revenge-taking does not run out of control. But when this oppression rises above the individual level and takes on a collective and state form, then in the mind of the wronged person there arises not only the question of the treatment of his own pain, but also hundreds of questions about the rulings of sharia, about justice, and about the philosophy of taking compensation.
Let us examine this matter in a little more detail and depth…
When an ordinary human being sees that military operations have been carried out by the state against his own area, village, or city in an oppressive manner, that people have been made homeless, and that every path of redress for the wrong done, of protest, and of demanding justice has been closed off and forcibly shut down… when even the courts have become silent spectators, or have become strengthened arms of the oppressor, then, as a Muslim, he seeks an answer and justice from the religion of his Lord: “Where is justice?”
The question then arises: when no door of the court remains open before the face of the wronged person, does sharia command this wronged Muslim to sit with his hands folded? And when taking action against the oppressor, is it necessary to look at his Madhhab?
The Religion of the Oppressor and the Universal Islamic Concept of Justice
The most fundamental and unchanging principle of Islamic sharia is this: “Oppression, in every case, is oppression; whether the one committing it is a Muslim or any non-Muslim, whoever he may be…” From the perspective of Islamic justice, the right of the wronged and the pursuit of the oppressor are not bound to any religious or tribal distinction. As Allah (SWT) says in the Holy Quran, in Surah al-Nahl, verse 126: “And if you punish [an enemy, O believers], punish with an equivalent of that with which you were harmed.”
It is narrated in Hadith No. 1393 of Jami’ al-Tirmidhi:
A man asked the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH):
“O Messenger of Allah (PBUH)! If someone comes to seize my property, what should I do?”
The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said:
“Do not give him your property.”
He asked:
“If he fights me?”
He said:
“You too, fight him.”
He said:
“If he kills me?”
The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said:
“Then you are a martyr.”
He asked:
“If I kill him?”
The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said:
“He will go to Hell.”
From this narration it becomes clear that defense is connected to the prevention of attack; the religious identity of the attacker, or his being a Muslim, does not give the oppressor any protection.
Violent or Armed Resistance: Rebellion, or a Right of Defense?
Here it is also necessary to understand the commonly held concept in society regarding resistance and rebellion…
It is such that when the matter moves beyond individual defense and reaches armed actions on a collective level against an oppressive state or power, then the use of language and terminology takes on special importance. Oppressive forces always give the defensive efforts of the wronged class the name of “rebellion,” “insurrection,” or “terrorism,” so as to isolate the wronged class, morally and religiously, both domestically and internationally, and leave it without support.
But from a sharia and fiqhi perspective, in scholarly terms: “Baghy (rebellion) is that rebellion… which is carried out against a just, law-abiding, sharia ruler, solely for the purpose of seizing power or spreading corruption.” On the other hand, when the state itself bombs innocent civilians, forces them into repeated and unjustified displacement, and the judiciary, out of bribery or fear, becomes a tool in the hand of the oppressor, then the wronged taking up arms and standing for their own defense and right is called not “rebellion,” but “armed resistance” and “defense of the self.”
On this matter the intellectual position of the great imam of Islamic fiqh, Hazrat Imam Abu Hanifa (rh) is very clear. During the eras of the Umayyad and Abbasid governments, he gave not only moral but also financial support to the movements of Sayyidina al-Nafs al-Zakiyya (rh) and Sayyidina Zaid ibn Ali (rh) against the tyrannical rulers. In the view of Imam A’zam (rh) defending one’s rights against a tyrannical ruler and a tyrannical system, standing up courageously rather than enduring oppression, was a far better act, on the condition that its purpose was the removal of oppression and the securing of justice and fairness.
To be continued…
