Commanding Virtue and Forbidding Vice

Commanding Virtue and Forbidding Vice by Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi az-Zāhiri (died 456 AH)

Translated Translated by Abū Hassān Source: Al-Fisal fil-Milal, 4/132-135.

Commanding Virtue and Forbidding Vice Ibn Hazm (d. 456)

Translator's Translator's note: "Commanding Virtue and Forbidding Vice" in the context used by  Ibn Hazm and Hazm and others  in the earlier generations, is in relation to how one deals with implementing the sharī‘ah in society;  specifically, how the citizen deals with the government; it is a political and legal topic. (Abū Muhammad said): The entire ummah [nation] has agreed on the wujūb [obligation] [obligation] of  commanding ma‘rūf [virtue, lit.: "known (to be good)"] and forbidding munkar [vice, lit. "denied"]. There has never been any disagreement about this, because Allāh Ta‘āla said: {And there-must-be from you an ummah calling to ma‘rūf and forbidding munkar} [Al ‘Imrān 3:104]. Then, there arose a disagreement about how this is implemented. The opinion of  some of Ahl as-Sunnah, from the elderly Sahābah and those after them (radiyallāhu ‘anhum), like: Sa‘d ibn Abī Waqqās ; Usāmah ibn Zaid ; Ibn ‘Umar; Muhammad ibn Maslamah; and those later, like: Ahmad ibn Hanbal; was that: the method is done initially only by the qalb [hatred; inner protest; lit. "heart"] and then by the lisān [speech; outward protest; lit. "tongue"] if one is able, but never by the yad [combat, physical force; lit. "hand"]. This is the opinion of  Abū Bakr ibn Kaisan [the Mu‘tazili ]; and of all of the Rawāfid [extreme Shi‘ah], even it is meant they were all killed; except if the Mahdi emerges, in which case everyone must fight alongside him. Those of Ahl as-Sunnah with this opinion claim to follow the example of  ‘Uthmān (radiy (radiyallāhu allāhu ‘anhu); and that of the above-mentioned Sahābah (radiyallāhu (radiyallāhu ‘anhum) ; of those who sat [in the affairs of ‘Alī , Mu‘āwiyah and ‘Ā’ishah] instead of fighting; however , all of those with this opinion from Ahl as-Sunnah only considered it so when (the ruler) was not ‘adl [correct, just, fair]; if the  leader was ‘adl and a fāsiq [rebellious sinner] rose against him , then all of them agreed to fighting on the leader's side. Ibn ‘Umar is reported to have said: "If I knew which group was transgressing, no one would precede me in fighting them." (Abū Muhammad said): There is no other way to regard the Sahābah (radiyallāhu (radiyallāhu ‘anhum) [i.e. that they would fight against tyranny if they knew where it was; to think otherwise of them would be degrading to them]. Then groups of Ahl as-Sunnah; the rest of the Mu‘tazilah ; all of the Khawārij; and the Zaidīyah; considered that unsheathing the sword to command virtue and forbid vice is wājib [obligatory; lit. "a must"] if there is no other way to remove the vice ; if some people are organized upon the truth, and they are able to fight without losing hope of victory, then it is fard [compulsory, obligatory] upon them; but if they are a small, weak force unhopeful to win, then they may leave off using the yad to change the munkar. This is the opinion of  ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib (radiyallāhu ‘anhu) and those with him of the Sahābah; of the Mother of the Believers ‘Ā’ishah (radiyallāhu ‘anhā), Talhah, az-Zubair, and those with them of the Sahābah; of Mu‘āwiyah, ‘Amr, an-Nu‘mān ibn Bashīr , and those with them of the Sahābah (radiyallāhu ‘anhum ajma‘īn); it is the opinion of: ‘Abd Allāh ibn az-Zubair ; Muhammad; al-Hasan ibn ‘Alī ; and the rest of the Sahābah from the Muhājirin and the Ansār who fought on the Day of AlHarrah (radiyallāhu ‘anhum jamī‘ihim ajma‘īn) ; it is the opinion of all those who stood up against alHajjāj the fāsiq and those of the Sahābah he appointed, like Anas ibn Mālik ; those who fought were

2

Commanding Virtue and Forbidding Vice Ibn Hazm (d. 456)

from the best of the Tābi‘īn , like: ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn Abī Laila ; Sa‘īd ibn Jubair; Abul-Bakhtari atTā’i; ‘Atā’ as-Sulami al-Azdi ; al-Hasan al-Basri ; Mālik ibn Dinar ; Muslim ibn Bashār ; Abul-Haurā’; as-Sha‘bi; ‘Abd Allāh ibn Ghālib ; ‘Uqbah ibn ‘Abd al-Ghāfir ; ‘Uqbah ibn Sahbān; Māhān; al-Muttarif  ibn al-Mughīrah ibn Shu‘bah S hu‘bah; Abul-Ma‘ad; Hanzalah ibn ‘Abd Allāh ; Abus-Suhh al-Hanā’i ; Talq ibn Habīb; al-Muttarif ibn ‘Abd ‘Abd Allāh ibn as-Sakhīr ; an-Nadr ibn Anas ; ‘Atā’ ibn as-Sā’ib ; Ibrāhīm ibn Yazīd at-Taimi; Abul-Hausa; Jibillah ibn Zahr ; and others; and those of the Tābi‘ Tābi‘īn like: ‘Abd Allāh ibn ‘Abd Al-‘Azīz ibn ‘Abd Allāh ibn ‘Umar ; Muhammad ibn ‘Ajlān; and those who fought alongside Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allāh ibn al-Hasan ; Hāshim ibn Bishr ; Matar; and those who fought alongside Ibrāhīm ibn ‘Abd Allāh ; and it is the opinion indicated by the fuqahā [jurists, pl. of faqīh] like Abū Hanīfah, al-Hasan ibn Huyay , Sharīk, Mālik, as-Shāfi‘i, Dāwūd, and their companions. All of those we w e mentioned above either explicitly stated this opinion or they proved their adherence to it by physically fighting against a munkar. (Abū Muhammad said): The first-mentioned group uses as their evidence some ahādīth [pl. of hadīth] containing: "Do we fight them O Messenger of Allāh ?" He said: "No, not as long as they pray"; pray" ; another hadīth says: "No, not until you see clear kufr [disbelief] from them and you have proof of  such from Allāh"; Allāh"; some contain the obligation to accept being beaten if a person's back is struck and his wealth is taken; some mention: "If you fear the sword's glimmer, then throw your garment over your face and say: I want you to assume my sins and your sins, then you will be from Ashāb an-Nār [the companions of the fire]"; fire]" ; some contain: "Be " Be Allāh's slave the killed, not Allāh's slave the killer"; killer" ; and they use Allāh's word: {And recite to them in truth the news of Adam's two sons, when they presented their offerings, so it was accepted of one but not accepted of the other…} [Al-Mā’idah 5:27]. (Abū Muhammad said): They have nothing here to establish proof; and we have thoroughly examined each narration, all of their asānīd [chains of transmission; ascriptions; pl. of isnād] and all of  their meanings, in our book, Al-Īsāl ila Fahm il-Khisāl ; we will now mention herein some clauses thereof that should suffice; and by Allāh we are empowered: As for the Prophet's (sallallāhu ‘alaihi wa sallama) command to have sabr [patience] when one's wealth is taken and back is struck, then undoubtedly that is in reference to when the imām [leader] has a right to do so; there is no doubt that it is fard for us to have patience and comply; even if there is justification to behead someone, he must comply; otherwise he is a fāsiq; but if that was for some  invalid reason , then Allāh save us from thinking Allāh's Messenger (sallallāhu ‘alaihi wa sallama) would command us to have sabr and comply! The proof of this is that Allāh ‘Azza Wa Jalla said: {And assist one another upon duty and piety, and do not assist one another upon sin and transgression} tra nsgression} [Al-Mā’idah 5:2]; and we know that the speech of  Allāh's Messenger (sallallāhu ‘alaihi wa sallama) does not contradict the speech of his Master Ta‘āla; Allāh ‘Azza Wa Jalla said: {And he does not speak from desire; it is only wahy [inspiration] inspired} [An-Najm 53:3-4]; and He Ta‘āla said: {And if  it was from other than Allāh, they would have found therein much contradiction} [An-Nisā’ 4:82]. So it's correct to say that whatever wh atever Allāh's Messenger (sallallāhu ‘alaihi wa sallam) said is itself  wahy from Allāh ‘Azza Wa Jalla ; and it does not contradict itself; as such, it is certain without doubt and known by every Muslim that: tha t: taking the wealth of a Muslim or a dhimmi [non-Muslim taxpayer] without right and striking his back without right is sin and transgression and harām [forbidden];

3

Commanding Virtue and Forbidding Vice Ibn Hazm (d. 456)

Allāh's Messenger (sallallāhu ‘alaihi wa sallama) said: "Verily your blood and your wealth and your possessions are harām [sacred, forbidden to damage or take]"; take]" ; since there is no doubt in this and not one of the Muslims disagrees with this: then the Muslim whose wealth is taken unjustly and his back is struck unjustly, while he is able to prevent this, and he allows it: then he is assisting his oppressor upon sin and transgression, and this is harām according to the text of the Qur’ān. As for the rest of the ahādīth we mentioned; and the story of the two sons of Adam; then there is no argument to be made with any of that. Regarding the story of Adam's two sons, then that was a sharī‘ah [legal system, code of law] different from our sharī‘ah; Allāh ‘Azza Wa Jalla said: {For each (nation) of you We made a shir‘ah [law] and a minhāj [method]} [Al-Mā’idah 5:48]. As for the ahādīth, then it is authentic that Allāh's Messenger (sallallāhu ‘alaihi wa sallama) said: "Whoever of you saw a munkar, he must then change it by his yad if he is able; if he is unable, then by his lisān; if he is unable, then by his qalb; and that is the weakest of īmān [faith, conviction]" conviction]";; and it's authentic that he (sallallāhu ‘alaihi wa sallama) said: "There is no obedience in disobedience (to Allāh); obedience is only in obedience (to Allāh); each of you must listen and obey as long as you are not ordered with disobedience; if you are ordered with disobedience, there is no listening and no obeying";; and he (‘alaihis-salāmu) said: "Whoever is killed defending his money, then he is a shahīd obeying" [martyr, lit. "witness"]; whoever is killed defending his religion, then he is a shahīd; whoever is killed fighting oppression, then he is a shahīd"; shahīd" ; and he (‘alaihis-salāmu) said: "You must command virtue and forbid vice, or Allāh will punish you." The zāhir [clear, apparent meaning] of these just-mentioned reports contradicts the others mentioned before; so one of these collections abrogates the other; there is no other possibility. [TN: The author refers here to the principle of naskh [abrogation], i.e. that some rulings Allāh revealed in an earlier period, He changed in a later period; see: Al-Ihkām fi Usūl al-Ahkām  and Al-Muhalla , translations pending.] We must then determine which of the two is the nāsikh [abrogating text]; and we know that those ahādīth in which is found the prohibition to fight are in accordance with the established principle; as they are in accordance with the condition of Muslims in the beginning of Islām without a doubt; so these latter ahādīth bring an addition to the sharī‘ah, specifically: qitāl [physical combat]; there is no doubt in this; so the abrogation of the former ahādīth is verified and their ruling is lifted and nullified the moment he (‘alaihis-salāmu) spoke the latter. It is dangerously forbidden to accept the mansūkh [abrogated text] and to abandon the nāsikh [abrogating text]; this is to accept doubt and to abandon certainty; and whoever al leges that these reports were nāsikh but then regressed to being mansūkh, has alleged something false; and has pursued that of which he has no knowledge; and has ignorantly spoken against Allāh; and this is not allowed, since Allāh ‘Azza Wa Jalla did not clarify that the additional ruling became mansūkh after it was nāsikh; and He Ta‘āla Ta‘āla said about the Qur’ān Qur ’ān (that it is): {a clarification for everything} [An-Nahl 16:89].

4

Commanding Virtue and Forbidding Vice Ibn Hazm (d. 456)

Another proof is that Allāh ‘Azza Wa Jalla said: {And if two groups of the Believers fight one another, then reconcile between them; then if one of them transgresses against the other, then fight those who transgressed until they return} [Al-Hujurāt 49:9]; and no two Muslims disagree that this āyah, which contains the fard fa rd [obligation] of fighting against the transgressing group, is itself  muhkam [res judicata , already decided; precise] and it is not mansūkh; so instead, it is the evidence which governs how all the other ahādīth on this subject are understood; whatever is in accordance with this āyah [of fighting against transgressors], then it is nāsikh; whatever contradicts this āyah [of  not fighting], then it is mansūkh and its ruling is lifted. Some people claimed that this āyah and these ahādīth are in reference to bandits and not to the sultān [authority figure]. (Abū Muhammad said): This is assuredly false; it is an opinion without proof; this claimant could could say that it refers to any people and not another people, or to any time period and not another, but there is no proof for that, so it is not correct; takhsīs [making a specific ruling] is not permitted without proof, because that is to speak against Allāh without knowledge; and Allāh's Messenger (sallallāhu ‘alaihi wa sallama) was asked about someone who demanded his money without right, so he (‘alaihis-salāmu) (‘alaihis-s alāmu) said: "Do not give it." He was then asked: "What if he fights against me?" He said: "Fight against him." He was asked: "What if I kill him?" He said: "Then he goes to the fire." He was asked: "What if he kills me?" He said: "You will go to the garden." It is also authentic that he (‘alaihis-salāmu) said: "The Muslim is the brother of the Muslim; he does not surrender him, nor does he oppress him"; him" ; it is also authentic that he (‘alaihis-salāmu) (‘alaihis-salāmu) said about zakāh [charity-tax]: "Whoever is asked for it correctly must give it; whoever is asked for it incorrectly must not give it." We related this firm report via trustworthy narrators from Anas ibn Mālik from Abū Bakr as-Siddīq from Allāh's Messenger (sallallāhu ‘alaihi wa sallama) ; and this invalidates the interpretation of those who interpret the ahādīth regarding qitāl [physical combat] for one's wealth as being against bandits, since bandits do not ask for zakāh; the sultān [authority figure] is the only one who asks for it; and even if Ahl al-Haqq [the people of truth] agreed, Ahl al-Bātil [the people of  fallacy] would not cease to oppose them; we ask Allāh for aid and success. (Abū Muhammad said): As for ‘Uthmān, then he had no idea they were going to kill him; he only saw them laying siege; further, he was a just ruler and even these people (who disagree with the main opinion) consider fighting alongside the just ruler is fard! So they have no argument using the situation of ‘Uthmān (radiy (radiyallāhu allāhu ‘anhu). Some have said that an uprising would cause violations against sanctuaries, shedding of blood, taking of wealth, tearing of veils, and the dissolution of power; others responded to them saying: No! It is not permissible for the one who is commanding virtue and forbidding vice to violate a sanctuary nor to take wealth without right nor to confront one who does not fight him; if he did these things then he himself should be fought; as for killing the people of munkar, whether few or many, then this is fard upon him; but as for the people of munkar killing others, taking their wealth, and violating sanctuaries, then this is all the munkar which people need to change; also, if having a fear of such things as mentioned above restricts changing the munkar and commanding virtue, then this would identically restrict conducting jihād against Ahl al-Harb [the people of war]; and no Muslim would ever  say this ; even though jihād could lead to the Christians capturing Muslim women and children, to

5

Commanding Virtue and Forbidding Vice Ibn Hazm (d. 456)

them taking their wealth and shedding their blood and violating sanctuaries; there is no difference of  opinion between any of the Muslims that jihād is wājib [obligatory, lit. "a must"] even in this situation; the two matters are identical, and both are jihād and calling others to the Qur’ān and the Sunnah. (Abū Muhammad said): It should be said to them: What do you say about a sultān who puts the Jews in charge, makes the Christians his army, forces the Muslims to pay the jizyah [protection tax], tax], raises weapons against Muslim children, demands Muslim women to fo rnicate, holds arms against Muslims, captures their women and children, and is publicly perverse with them; but in all of that, he still agrees with Islām outwardly and he continues to pray? If they say that it is not permissible to rise against him, then it should be said: but he will continue killing Muslims until he is the only one who remains, him and Ahl al-Kufr [the people of disbelief] along with him; if they permit having sabr [patience] in that situation, they would have opposed Islām  and abandoned it ; but if they affirm the obligation to rise against such a tyrant – and this is their actual opinion – then it is said to them: what if he killed only ninety percent of the Muslims or all of  them except one of them and captured their women and took their wealth; if they reject standing against him, they contradict themselves; but if they still agree, then we continue to ask them about killing fewer and fewer Muslims, while they continue to agree with standing against him, until we reach the killing of a single Muslim, or the capture of a single woman, or the taking of a single person's wealth, or the oppressive violation of someone's skin (through whipping); if they distinguish between any of that, they contradict themselves and make rulings without evidence, which is not allowed; but if they obligate a physical response to all of that, they return to the truth. We further ask them about one whose wife, daughter, son and himself are to be abducted by a corrupt sultān so that he could be sexually perverse with them; should he surrender himself, his wife, his son, and his daughter to this evil; or is it fard upon him to defend against whoever wanted this? If they say that it is fard upon him to surrender himself and his family, they have said something terrible that no Muslim says ; but if they say that it is fard upon him to fight, then they return to the truth and they must say the same thing about every Muslim, i.e. defending each other [as all Muslims are brothers] in person and property. (Abū Muhammad said): The obligation, if anything of tyranny tyr anny occurs, no matter how small, is to speak to the imām [leader] about it and to forbid it; then if he takes heed, returns to the truth, and yields to having his own skin struck (for his tyranny), or his hand cut (if he stole), or the punishment of  zina, false accusation, drinking wine, etc., if he did any of these things, then he is not to be removed from office; he is the imām, just as he was before, and removing him is not permissible; but if he neglected to submit to anything of these obligations and he did not return to the truth, then th en removing him is obligatory and someone who will establish the truth must be put in his place; this is as Allāh Ta‘āla said: {And assist one another upon duty and piety, and do not assist one another upon sin and transgression} [Al-Mā’idah 5:2]; and it is not permissible to forfeit anything from the obligations of the sharī‘ah; and with Allāh Ta‘āla is success.

6