Commanding Virtue and Forbidding Vice

by Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi az-Zhiri (died 456 AH)

Translated by Ab Hassn
Source: Al-Fisal fil-Milal, 4/132-135.

Commanding Virtue and Forbidding Vice

Ibn Hazm (d. 456)

Translator's note: "Commanding Virtue and Forbidding Vice" in the context used by Ibn Hazm and others in the earlier generations, is in relation to how one deals with implementing the sharah in society; specifically, how the citizen deals with the government; it is a political and legal topic. (Ab Muhammad said): The entire ummah [nation] has agreed on the wujb [obligation] of commanding marf [virtue, lit.: "known (to be good)"] and forbidding munkar [vice, lit. "denied"]. There has never been any disagreement about this, because Allh Tala said: {And there-must-be from you an ummah calling to marf and forbidding munkar} [Al Imrn 3:104]. Then, there arose a disagreement about how this is implemented. The opinion of some of Ahl as-Sunnah, from the elderly Sahbah and those after them (radiyallhu anhum), like: Sad ibn Ab Waqqs; Usmah 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 lisn [speech; outward protest; lit. "tongue"] if one is able, but never by the yad [combat, physical force; lit. "hand"]. This is the opinion of Ab Bakr ibn Kaisan [the Mutazili]; and of all of the Rawfid [extreme Shiah], 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 Uthmn (radiyallhu anhu); and that of the above-mentioned Sahbah (radiyallhu anhum); of those who sat [in the affairs of Al, Muwiyah and 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 fsiq [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." (Ab Muhammad said): There is no other way to regard the Sahbah (radiyallhu 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 Mutazilah; all of the Khawrij; and the Zaidyah; considered that unsheathing the sword to command virtue and forbid vice is wjib [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 Al ibn Ab Tlib (radiyallhu anhu) and those with him of the Sahbah; of the Mother of the Believers ishah (radiyallhu anh), Talhah, az-Zubair, and those with them of the Sahbah; of Muwiyah, Amr, an-Numn ibn Bashr, and those with them of the Sahbah (radiyallhu anhum ajman); it is the opinion of: Abd Allh ibn az-Zubair; Muhammad; al-Hasan ibn Al; and the rest of the Sahbah from the Muhjirin and the Ansr who fought on the Day of AlHarrah (radiyallhu anhum jamihim ajman); it is the opinion of all those who stood up against alHajjj the fsiq and those of the Sahbah he appointed, like Anas ibn Mlik; those who fought were

Commanding Virtue and Forbidding Vice

Ibn Hazm (d. 456)

from the best of the Tbin, like: Abd al-Rahmn ibn Ab Laila; Sad ibn Jubair; Abul-Bakhtari atTi; At as-Sulami al-Azdi; al-Hasan al-Basri; Mlik ibn Dinar; Muslim ibn Bashr; Abul-Haur; as-Shabi; Abd Allh ibn Ghlib; Uqbah ibn Abd al-Ghfir; Uqbah ibn Sahbn; Mhn; al-Muttarif ibn al-Mughrah ibn Shubah; Abul-Maad; Hanzalah ibn Abd Allh; Abus-Suhh al-Hani; Talq ibn Habb; al-Muttarif ibn Abd Allh ibn as-Sakhr; an-Nadr ibn Anas; At ibn as-Sib; Ibrhm ibn Yazd at-Taimi; Abul-Hausa; Jibillah ibn Zahr; and others; and those of the Tbi Tbin like: Abd Allh ibn Abd Al-Azz ibn Abd Allh ibn Umar; Muhammad ibn Ajln; and those who fought alongside Muhammad ibn Abd Allh ibn al-Hasan; Hshim ibn Bishr; Matar; and those who fought alongside Ibrhm ibn Abd Allh; and it is the opinion indicated by the fuqah [jurists, pl. of faqh] like Ab Hanfah, al-Hasan ibn Huyay, Shark, Mlik, as-Shfii, Dwd, and their companions. All of those we mentioned above either explicitly stated this opinion or they proved their adherence to it by physically fighting against a munkar. (Ab Muhammad said): The first-mentioned group uses as their evidence some ahdth [pl. of hadth] containing: "Do we fight them O Messenger of Allh?" He said: "No, not as long as they pray"; another hadth says: "No, not until you see clear kufr [disbelief] from them and you have proof of such from Allh"; 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 Ashb an-Nr [the companions of the fire]"; some contain: "Be Allh's slave the killed, not Allh's slave the killer"; and they use Allh'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-Midah 5:27]. (Ab Muhammad said): They have nothing here to establish proof; and we have thoroughly examined each narration, all of their asnd [chains of transmission; ascriptions; pl. of isnd] and all of their meanings, in our book, Al-sl ila Fahm il-Khisl; we will now mention herein some clauses thereof that should suffice; and by Allh we are empowered: As for the Prophet's (sallallhu 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 imm [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 fsiq; but if that was for some invalid reason, then Allh save us from thinking Allh's Messenger (sallallhu alaihi wa sallama) would command us to have sabr and comply! The proof of this is that Allh Azza Wa Jalla said: {And assist one another upon duty and piety, and do not assist one another upon sin and transgression} [Al-Midah 5:2]; and we know that the speech of Allh's Messenger (sallallhu alaihi wa sallama) does not contradict the speech of his Master Tala; Allh Azza Wa Jalla said: {And he does not speak from desire; it is only wahy [inspiration] inspired} [An-Najm 53:3-4]; and He Tala said: {And if it was from other than Allh, they would have found therein much contradiction} [An-Nis 4:82]. So it's correct to say that whatever Allh's Messenger (sallallhu alaihi wa sallam) said is itself wahy from Allh Azza Wa Jalla; and it does not contradict itself; as such, it is certain without doubt and known by every Muslim that: 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 harm [forbidden];

Commanding Virtue and Forbidding Vice

Ibn Hazm (d. 456)

Allh's Messenger (sallallhu alaihi wa sallama) said: "Verily your blood and your wealth and your possessions are harm [sacred, forbidden to damage or 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 harm according to the text of the Qurn. As for the rest of the ahdth 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 sharah [legal system, code of law] different from our sharah; Allh Azza Wa Jalla said: {For each (nation) of you We made a shirah [law] and a minhj [method]} [Al-Midah 5:48]. As for the ahdth, then it is authentic that Allh's Messenger (sallallhu 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 lisn; if he is unable, then by his qalb; and that is the weakest of mn [faith, conviction]"; and it's authentic that he (sallallhu alaihi wa sallama) said: "There is no obedience in disobedience (to Allh); obedience is only in obedience (to Allh); 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-salmu) said: "Whoever is killed defending his money, then he is a shahd [martyr, lit. "witness"]; whoever is killed defending his religion, then he is a shahd; whoever is killed fighting oppression, then he is a shahd"; and he (alaihis-salmu) said: "You must command virtue and forbid vice, or Allh will punish you." The zhir [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 Allh revealed in an earlier period, He changed in a later period; see: Al-Ihkm fi Usl al-Ahkm and Al-Muhalla, translations pending.] We must then determine which of the two is the nsikh [abrogating text]; and we know that those ahdth 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 Islm without a doubt; so these latter ahdth bring an addition to the sharah, specifically: qitl [physical combat]; there is no doubt in this; so the abrogation of the former ahdth is verified and their ruling is lifted and nullified the moment he (alaihis-salmu) spoke the latter. It is dangerously forbidden to accept the manskh [abrogated text] and to abandon the nsikh [abrogating text]; this is to accept doubt and to abandon certainty; and whoever alleges that these reports were nsikh but then regressed to being manskh, has alleged something false; and has pursued that of which he has no knowledge; and has ignorantly spoken against Allh; and this is not allowed, since Allh Azza Wa Jalla did not clarify that the additional ruling became manskh after it was nsikh; and He Tala said about the Qurn (that it is): {a clarification for everything} [An-Nahl 16:89].

Commanding Virtue and Forbidding Vice

Ibn Hazm (d. 456)

Another proof is that Allh 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-Hujurt 49:9]; and no two Muslims disagree that this yah, which contains the fard [obligation] of fighting against the transgressing group, is itself muhkam [res judicata, already decided; precise] and it is not manskh; so instead, it is the evidence which governs how all the other ahdth on this subject are understood; whatever is in accordance with this yah [of fighting against transgressors], then it is nsikh; whatever contradicts this yah [of not fighting], then it is manskh and its ruling is lifted. Some people claimed that this yah and these ahdth are in reference to bandits and not to the sultn [authority figure]. (Ab Muhammad said): This is assuredly false; it is an opinion without proof; this claimant 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; takhss [making a specific ruling] is not permitted without proof, because that is to speak against Allh without knowledge; and Allh's Messenger (sallallhu alaihi wa sallama) was asked about someone who demanded his money without right, so he (alaihis-salmu) 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-salmu) said: "The Muslim is the brother of the Muslim; he does not surrender him, nor does he oppress him"; it is also authentic that he (alaihis-salmu) said about zakh [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 Mlik from Ab Bakr as-Siddq from Allh's Messenger (sallallhu alaihi wa sallama); and this invalidates the interpretation of those who interpret the ahdth regarding qitl [physical combat] for one's wealth as being against bandits, since bandits do not ask for zakh; the sultn [authority figure] is the only one who asks for it; and even if Ahl al-Haqq [the people of truth] agreed, Ahl al-Btil [the people of fallacy] would not cease to oppose them; we ask Allh for aid and success. (Ab Muhammad said): As for Uthmn, 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 Uthmn (radiyallhu 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 jihd against Ahl al-Harb [the people of war]; and no Muslim would ever say this; even though jihd could lead to the Christians capturing Muslim women and children, to

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 jihd is wjib [obligatory, lit. "a must"] even in this situation; the two matters are identical, and both are jihd and calling others to the Qurn and the Sunnah. (Ab Muhammad said): It should be said to them: What do you say about a sultn who puts the Jews in charge, makes the Christians his army, forces the Muslims to pay the jizyah [protection tax], raises weapons against Muslim children, demands Muslim women to fornicate, holds arms against Muslims, captures their women and children, and is publicly perverse with them; but in all of that, he still agrees with Islm 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 Islm 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 sultn 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. (Ab Muhammad said): The obligation, if anything of tyranny occurs, no matter how small, is to speak to the imm [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 imm, 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 removing him is obligatory and someone who will establish the truth must be put in his place; this is as Allh Tala said: {And assist one another upon duty and piety, and do not assist one another upon sin and transgression} [Al-Midah 5:2]; and it is not permissible to forfeit anything from the obligations of the sharah; and with Allh Tala is success.