If the Muslim ruler suspends the hudud (fixed Qur'anic punishments), is it permissible for individuals to enforce the hudud among themselves?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you.
The questioner : Shaykh, here, some of the youth, at certain times, perhaps repeatedly in some countries, see a man drinking khamr (intoxicants) in the street, so they beat him, take him, and enforce the hudud (fixed Qur'anic punishments) upon him themselves. When they see a man doing something, they say, "Enforcing the hudud." This is a matter that has no connection to the ruler, even if we assume it does have a connection to the ruler, the ruler himself has suspended these hudud. We are enforcing the command of Allah, and fear Allah as much as you are able. What is your advice to the youth in this regard?
The Shaykh : I do not know; we have not previously spoken about such an issue. We mentioned Ibn Taymiyyah and that he used to enforce these hudud. I think this occasion arose in some of the gatherings. The summary of what I remember is that the matter differs from one era to another.
The questioner : Yes, you mentioned it before.
The Shaykh : Yes, the matter differs from one era to another, and from one ruler to another. It differs between a ruler who facilitates it, or at least allows some of the scholars to take charge of enforcing the hudud. We said at that time, I think, that for this reason there were judges and muftis (scholars who issue fatwas), because a single ruler, the primary guardian, cannot enforce these hudud himself, so he appoints judges and muftis and the like. If there is someone like Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah who enforces the hudud, and the ruler does not stand as an obstacle in his way, but rather supports him, backs him, and blesses his efforts, then that is good. But if the matter is otherwise, we say on this occasion that enforcing the hudud is for the ruler, not for the individual or individuals. This is because, in reality, expanding on this enforcement may lead to fitnah (trial, discord or temptation), especially if a person is killed, even if it was accidental. If it was accidental and one wants to enforce the hudud on this killer, let alone if it was intentional. If it was intentional, then desires become confused, and they are unable to be cautious or verify whether the killing was intentional or accidental. Thus, fitnah increases between the tribes, especially if there are hostile and feuding clans. Then the blood feud continues between the tribes, perhaps for many, distant, and long centuries. Therefore, the principle in enforcing the hudud is that it is for the rulers, except in cases where no corruption results between the ruler and the ruled on one hand, and between the ruled themselves on the other hand.
The questioner : Shaykh, here, some of the youth, at certain times, perhaps repeatedly in some countries, see a man drinking khamr (intoxicants) in the street, so they beat him, take him, and enforce the hudud (fixed Qur'anic punishments) upon him themselves. When they see a man doing something, they say, "Enforcing the hudud." This is a matter that has no connection to the ruler, even if we assume it does have a connection to the ruler, the ruler himself has suspended these hudud. We are enforcing the command of Allah, and fear Allah as much as you are able. What is your advice to the youth in this regard?
The Shaykh : I do not know; we have not previously spoken about such an issue. We mentioned Ibn Taymiyyah and that he used to enforce these hudud. I think this occasion arose in some of the gatherings. The summary of what I remember is that the matter differs from one era to another.
The questioner : Yes, you mentioned it before.
The Shaykh : Yes, the matter differs from one era to another, and from one ruler to another. It differs between a ruler who facilitates it, or at least allows some of the scholars to take charge of enforcing the hudud. We said at that time, I think, that for this reason there were judges and muftis (scholars who issue fatwas), because a single ruler, the primary guardian, cannot enforce these hudud himself, so he appoints judges and muftis and the like. If there is someone like Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah who enforces the hudud, and the ruler does not stand as an obstacle in his way, but rather supports him, backs him, and blesses his efforts, then that is good. But if the matter is otherwise, we say on this occasion that enforcing the hudud is for the ruler, not for the individual or individuals. This is because, in reality, expanding on this enforcement may lead to fitnah (trial, discord or temptation), especially if a person is killed, even if it was accidental. If it was accidental and one wants to enforce the hudud on this killer, let alone if it was intentional. If it was intentional, then desires become confused, and they are unable to be cautious or verify whether the killing was intentional or accidental. Thus, fitnah increases between the tribes, especially if there are hostile and feuding clans. Then the blood feud continues between the tribes, perhaps for many, distant, and long centuries. Therefore, the principle in enforcing the hudud is that it is for the rulers, except in cases where no corruption results between the ruler and the ruled on one hand, and between the ruled themselves on the other hand.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.