Overview (Verses 33- 34)

The Just Punishment for Rebellion
 
The sūrah lays down the punishment for the crime that such wicked elements commit. This is known in the Islamic legal code as the punishment for waging war against Islam: “It is but a just punishment of those who make war on God and His Messenger, and endeavour to spread corruption on earth, that they should be put to death, or be crucified, or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides or that they should be banished from the land. Such is their disgrace in this world, and more grievous suffering awaits them in the life to come; except those who repent before you overpower them. For you must know that God is Much-Forgiving, Merciful.” (Verses 33-34)
 
The crime to which this legislative statement refers involves rebellion against a Muslim ruler who implements the laws of Islam. The rebels gather in a group renouncing the ruler’s authority. They cause fear among the Muslim community living in the Muslim land and they commit aggression against their lives and property. Some scholars also make it a condition that this should take place away from the areas where the ruler’s authority is enforced. Others suggest that the very fact that such rebels begin to gather and use force in aggression against the people of the land of Islam, makes this legal provision applicable to them wherever they are. This is probably more practical, because Islam adopts a pragmatic approach.
 
Such rebels do not merely fight the ruler or the community, but they make war on God and His Messenger, since they fight God’s law, wage an assault against the community implementing it and threaten the land where the law is implemented. By doing so, they also spread corruption on earth. There is no worse corruption than the attempt to prevent the implementation of Divine law and to spread fear in a land where Divine law is applied.
 
It is true that such rebels make war on God and His Messenger, although they surely do not fight God with their swords, and they do not fight His Messenger who has passed away. But by fighting the Muslim ruler and the Muslim community, they actually make war on God as they obstruct His law and prevent its implementation. Phrased in this way, the Qur’ānic statement also signifies that the ruler who is entitled to enforce these punishments against those who rebel against him is the ruler who actually implements God’s law in the land of Islam. Without such qualities, no ruler may implement these provisions or enforce these punishments.
 
We wish to make this statement very clear, because some of those who are happy to be subservient to rulers in all generations try to use this verse for the wrong reasons. They find it easy to encourage the enforcement of such punishments by rulers who neither implement God’s law nor promote the establishment of the land of Islam in their countries, even though they may profess to be Muslims. Moreover, they want these punishments to be enforced against people who are not making war against God and His Messenger, but who fight a tyrannical power, disobedient to God and His Messenger. It must be understood that no authority has the backing of God’s law in its suppression of its enemies unless it implements God’s law. Why should an authority seek endorsement of its actions by God’s law anyway, when it rejects its implementation, thus claiming for itself certain qualities of Godhead?
 
Let us consider a situation where an armed group rebels against the authority of a Muslim ruler who is implementing Islamic law and threatens the lives and properties of Muslims living in the land of Islam. The punishment for those who join such a group is death, or crucifixion, (although some scholars say that they should be crucified after they are put to death, in order to frighten others) or to cut off their right hands and left feet.
 
Differing Views on Implementation
 
Scholars have widely different views on whether a Muslim ruler may choose any of these punishments or whether each punishment is implemented in a particular case. According to the Ĥanafī, Shāfi`ī and Ĥanbalī schools of Islam law, these punishments are ordered according to the crime committed. A rebel who kills without taking any property is put to death, while another who has taken property without killing has his limbs cut off. A person who has committed both crimes is put to death and crucified. A rebel who helps spread fear but has neither killed anyone nor taken any property, is banished.
 
According to Imām Mālik, a rebel who has killed must be killed. The Muslim ruler does not have a choice to enforce the lesser punishments of cutting off his limbs or banishing him. The only choice he has is either to put him to death by a method chosen by the state or to crucify him. If he has taken the property of Muslims but without killing anyone, he cannot be banished. The choices open to the ruler are to kill or crucify him or to cut off his limbs. If he has helped to spread fear, the ruler has all four choices and he may use his discretion. If the culprit is one of the organisers of rebellion, then cutting off his limbs may not be an adequate enough punishment. He should be either killed or crucified. If he is one who helps the rebellion with his physical strength, then cutting off his limbs is the appropriate punishment. If he is of neither type, then the lesser punishment of sending him into exile should be implemented.
 
We are more inclined to support Imām Mālik’s views, especially the latter part which makes the punishment enforceable even in the case of mere rebellion and of spreading fear. This gives a Muslim ruler the right to take pre-emptive action to forestall any rebellion. Those who threaten the security of the Muslim community in the land of Islam, thus, face a stern punishment because the Muslim community is the first to deserve to live in peace and security.
 
Scholars also differ in their understanding of what is meant by banishing the rebels and whether they should be removed from the land where they committed their crime or from the land where they have their freedom. In the latter sense, they are imprisoned. Or is it that they should be banished from the whole earth, which means that they should be put to death? Our preference is that they should be banished from the land where they committed their crime to a place where they feel lonely and weak. This makes their punishment of the same nature as their crime, which involves spreading fear.
 
“Such is their disgrace in this world, and more grievous suffering awaits them in the life to come.” (Verse 33). This means that their punishment in this life does not waive the punishment of the Hereafter, as it is the case in certain other crimes. This emphasises the gravity of crime and doubles its punishment. The reason being that the Muslim community should live in peace and security in the land of Islam and that the Muslim ruler who implements Islamic rules should be obeyed. Such a social set up and such a just and perfect system deserves to be protected against any design to undermine it.
 
If the rebels come to realise their mistake and turn to God in repentance when they still have their strength, then their punishment is waived and the Muslim ruler has no way of punishing them. God will forgive them eventually: “Except those who repent before you overpower them. For you must know that God is Much-Forgiving, Merciful.” (Verse 34)
 
The wisdom behind discounting the crime and waiving punishment in this case is clear. For one thing, it is an appreciation of their repentance where they still have their power. It is taken as evidence of their good intentions. For another, they are encouraged to repent so that the Muslim nation is spared the need to fight them.
 
Islam deals with human nature in its entirety. God, who has chosen this religion for us, is the Creator of human nature. He knows what suits man and what does not suit him. “How could it be that He who has created all should not know all? Indeed, He alone is unfathomable (in His wisdom), all aware.” (67: 14)