Our discussion last week concentrated on baghi, or rebellion against a legitimate Muslim government, which is traditionally treated as a crime carrying a mandatory death penalty. We looked into the details of this action and how it is treated in the Qur’an as well as how the Prophet’s companions dealt with such rebellion. We quoted Ali ibn Abu Talib’s view when he denied that the Khawarij who rebelled against him could be either unbelievers or hypocrites. He further described them as "our brothers, but they have acted wrongfully toward us."
It is not known that anyone of the Prophet’s companions disagreed with Ali on this point. Indeed, it forms a principle on which are based many rules and provisions that have been universally accepted by all schools of Islamic law. Hence, we say that baghi, or rebellion against a ruler, comes under aggression that must be prevented and repelled. Thus, to fight the rebels is permissible in order to prevent aggression, or to use modern terminology, it is an act of legitimate defense of the community.
This view is in prefect harmony with what scholars have stated that if the rebellion could be ended without fighting, then fighting the rebels is not permissible. Furthermore, scholars make it clear that such rebels are not required to pay blood money for those whom they kill if fighting breaks out, nor do they compensate for the injuries or the damage they cause.
Had their action been treated as a criminal offense, they would have had to pay full compensation, and they would have been subject to equal retaliation for any one they kill or injure.
Scholars also agree that it is a duty of the state to call on the rebels to end their action and to be with the community pledging their loyalty. This is something unparalleled in dealing with any type of crime whatsoever. When it is proved that someone has committed a crime, the only option is to punish the offender.
It is clear, then, that stopping the aggression of those who rebel against a Muslim government aims at protecting the social, political and economic systems an Islamic government must maintain. It is in this light that we should understand the rulings outlined in books of Islamic law concerning rebellion and rebels. This will logically lead us to conclude that a rebel is not treated as a criminal. Repelling such aggression, even though it goes as far as fighting such rebels as stated in Surah 49, is not a punishment either. It is the duty of modern Islamic state to enact the rules necessary to protect its systems, using for such purpose its authority to ensure what serves the interests of the community and prevents harm. In this, there is no need to overload the texts or interpret them in an arbitrary way, when they are clear and definitive.
Let us now turn our attention to another offense which is often treated as one carrying mandatory punishment, or a hudood offense, namely, drinking.
The Qur’an states a categorical and unequivocal prohibition of drinking. Indeed the prohibition goes even further so as to include any form of dealing with wines and intoxicants, even the mere presence in a place where other people drink. God says in the Qur’an: "Believers, intoxicants, games of chance, idolatrous practices and divining of arrows are abominations devised by Satan. Therefore, turn away from them so that you may be successful. Satan seeks only to stir up enmity and hatred among you by means of intoxicants and games of chance, and to turn you away from the remembrance of God and from prayers. Will you not, then, desist?" (5: 90-91)
Commenting on these two verses, the late Professor Muhammad Mustafa Shalabi, a scholar of high eminence, says: The two verses prohibiting wines are perhaps the most stringent form of prohibition included in the Qur’an. They include several factors each of which is sufficient on its own to make it clearly forbidden:
1. The fact that intoxicants, games of chance, idolatrous practices and the divining of arrows are grouped together are described as abomination.
2. These are all stated to be "devised by Satan."
3. The divine order, "turn away from them", which has a stronger implication than saying, "these are forbidden". Had the order been stated as mere "prohibition", it could have denoted only drinking. But using the form, "turn away" from it indicates that it is to be avoided in all ways, including drinking, buying and selling it, as well as using its price, carrying it or giving it as a gift, etc. This is supported by the same Qur’anic usage in Surah 22: "Turn away from the abomination of idols, and turn away from perjury." (22: 30).
4. Making success conditional on turning away from it. How is it possible that a believer could be happy when doing something which he must avoid in order to ensure his success? Can anyone permitting this be deemed to use his reason?
5. Sowing the seeds of enmity and hatred between people.
6. The fact that Satan uses it to turn people away from remembering God, which remembrance is a great source of contentment and reassurance for a believer. Indeed, a person who habitually drinks wines often finds himself suffering from anxiety, distress, worry and depression.
7. The fact that it is used to turn people away from prayer, when it is prayer which helps people to turn their backs on "all that is shameful, reprehensible conduct and all transgression." (16: 90)
8. The ending of the two verses with the rhetoric question, "Will you not, then, desist?" This is a threat expressed in the strongest form possible. It is reported that, when they heard this verse, some of the Prophet’s companions said: "We certainly desist, our Lord!" This signifies their immediate compliance with the strong prohibition they understood from the way these verses are phrased and their ending with a clear warning.
According to authentic Sunnah, Islam defines intoxicants as everything that influences a person’s mind, impeding its efficient functioning which God has granted to that person. Hence, we believe that this text of prohibition applies directly to all types of drugs. We need not resort to any analogy or other methods of deduction or ijtihad to arrive at such a ruling of prohibition of drugs. This clear prohibition in the above-quoted verses applies to them as it applies to wines and other intoxicants.
Next week, we will look at whether drinking is a hudood offense or not, God willing.