What is the ruling on carrying out orders to kill civilian protesters? Sh. Fadl Murad
With the Names of Allah: the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
Question:
It often happens, especially in some Arab and Islamic countries, that members of the army and state security forces fire upon peaceful demonstrators, resulting in the death or injury of some of them. Some claim this is justified under the pretext of following orders, obeying those in authority, and maintaining public order and security.
My question: Is this permissible according to Islamic law? Does their act of killing or injuring peaceful demonstrators—whether done on their own initiative, in obedience to their superiors, or under the pretext of maintaining security or self-defense—absolve them of civil and criminal responsibility, both in this world and in the Hereafter?
What is your ruling, may Allah have mercy on you and benefit us through your knowledge?
Answer:
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon the trustworthy Messenger of Allah.
Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.
In response to your inquiry, it is clear that any act of aggression involving killing or wounding peaceful demonstrators is strictly prohibited. The preservation of life is one of the essential objectives established by Islamic law, both in its texts and its purposes.
- Killing a Believer Intentionally:
Allah says: “And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell to abide therein; and the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him, and a great punishment is prepared for him.” [Qur’an 4:93].
The ruling in this verse is attached to the intentionality of the act, which is clear when a peaceful person is killed with a lethal weapon. The demonstrator is peaceful, and the killer uses a weapon with clear intent. Therefore, this warning applies to the perpetrator. - The Duty of Retribution (Qisas):
Allah says: “O you who have believed, prescribed for you is legal retribution (Qisas) for those murdered.” [Qur’an 2:178].
This is a compulsory duty that must be implemented, as indicated by the word “prescribed” (kutiba), and it applies to all murders, as indicated by the generality of the term. The only exceptions made by Islamic law are cases of accidental killing, where no retribution is applied, and fighting against rebellious groups after reconciliation has failed. Therefore, anyone who intentionally kills a peaceful demonstrator falls under the ruling of this verse, which mandates retribution (Qisas). Those who rely on baseless justifications to invalidate this principle are committing a grave sin in addition to the crime of murder. They are distorting the meanings of the texts and misinterpreting them based on their desires.
The generality of Allah’s statement: “And whoever kills a believer intentionally…” unquestionably includes the killing of peaceful demonstrators. Retribution is mandated by the verse: “Prescribed for you is legal retribution for those murdered,” and by the verse: “And there is (saving of) life for you in legal retribution, O people of understanding.”
The Prophet (peace be upon him) also said: “Indeed, your blood, your property, and your honor are sacred to one another like the sanctity of this day of yours, in this month of yours, in this land of yours.” The texts on this matter are numerous and definitive.
No text has come to exempt any case of intentional killing or to restrict it except in the case of repelling an aggressor (sā’il) who attacks a person’s life, honor, or property. It is well known that an aggressor is someone who deliberately intends to harm another person’s life, wealth, or honor. This criterion does not apply to demonstrators, their goals, or their demands, whether in countries that legally recognize the right to peaceful protest or those that prohibit it, due to the general sanctity of life and the prohibition against shedding blood.
Demonstrations as Urf
Moreover, peaceful demonstration has become a global custom and even a constitutional and legal right. When a ruler assumes power, he does so through a contract that includes certain conditions, among them the rights of the people to express their opinions and engage in peaceful protest. If he attacks demonstrators, he violates the contract and sheds protected lives, committing two crimes: a constitutional breach and a grave crime related to the violation of the sanctity of life, property, and honor.
- Obedience to Orders to Kill Demonstrators:
It is not permissible for police or soldiers to obey orders to kill or attack demonstrators. This is because obedience to the state is conditional and derivative, while obedience to Allah and His Messenger is the primary and absolute obedience. There is no contradiction between obeying Allah and His Messenger and obeying rulers because the derivative cannot contradict the original.
If there is a conflict, obedience to the ruler is void. The obedience to the rulers is invalid when it conflicts with the clear texts of Islamic law. This principle has been firmly established by the scholars. It is universally agreed that “obedience to the leader is only obligatory if he commands in accordance with Islamic law.”
This is supported by many texts, such as the hadith in Sahih Muslim (3/1469) where the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “A Muslim must listen and obey in what he likes and dislikes unless he is commanded to disobey (Allah). If he is commanded to disobey, then there is no listening or obedience.”
Muslim also reports (3/1468) from Umm al-Husayn that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said during his Farewell Pilgrimage: “Even if a mutilated slave is placed in authority over you and he leads you according to the Book of Allah, then listen to him and obey.”
The condition for obedience is that the leader must lead according to the Book of Allah, and any command that contradicts the Book of Allah is invalid and carries no obligation of obedience. Thus, the political contract in Islam, as affirmed by all scholars, is based on the principle that “they do not obligate obedience to the leader in everything he commands, but only in what is permissible in Islamic law. They do not allow obedience in disobedience to Allah, even if the leader is just.” Ibn Abd al-Salam also stated that there is no obedience to ignorant rulers unless it is known that their commands are in accordance with Islamic law because their orders and statements are often mixed with truth and falsehood. The hadith states: “People will take ignorant leaders who will issue fatwas without knowledge, thus going astray and leading others astray.” Blind obedience to these ignorant leaders is misguidance. One must ensure that their orders conform to Islamic law; if they do, they are to be obeyed; otherwise, they are not.
- No Excuse for Coercion in Killing:
Some might argue that a soldier is coerced into killing, but the response is that there is no coercion in killing according to the consensus of the scholars. Even if a soldier is under duress, whether threatened with harm, imprisonment, or dismissal, he is not permitted to kill. This holds even if we assume there is compelling coercion, which is rarely the case. In reality, the most that can happen to a soldier who disobeys orders is dismissal or imprisonment, and this does not amount to coercion that justifies killing.
Ibn al-Arabi said: “There is no difference of opinion among the scholars that if a person is coerced to kill, it is not permissible for him to save himself by killing another. He is required to endure the affliction that has befallen him.”
This principle is based on the great Islamic maxim that harm should not be removed by harm.
Whoever kills under coercion is still liable for retribution and has committed a grave sin. Imam al-Shafi’i stated in Al-Umm: “If the person ordered to kill knows that the command is unjust, both he and the leader are liable for retribution, and they are considered as killers together.”
Even in cases of coercion, if a soldier kills a demonstrator, Imam Malik ruled that both the coerced and the coercer are liable for retribution. This is also the view of the Hanbali school and was supported by al-Shafi’i with some detail. Abu Hanifa said that the coercer should be executed.
If this strictness applies in cases of real coercion, then in other cases, retribution is obligatory without dispute.
In reality, the actions of the police, security forces, and army in suppressing demonstrators do not fall under coercion but are acts of aggression that warrant criminal accountability and retribution. Ignorance is no excuse because the prohibition against shedding protected blood is a fundamental aspect of religion, and no one can claim ignorance of it.
Conclusion:
Aggression against demonstrators, whether by killing or wounding them under any pretext, is forbidden by Islamic law and requires compensation according to the general evidence that supports this ruling. There is no text in Islamic law that exempts or permits the killing of demonstrators by orders from security forces. Whoever commits such an act has committed a grave crime, bears the responsibility for a Muslim’s blood, and is liable for retribution.
And Allah knows best.