In origin, every individual is innocent. No one should be punished without a court verdict. It is absolutely forbidden to torture anyone; and anyone who does this will be punished.

This article covers three issues: The principle of innocence, the prohibition of imposing a penalty without a judge’s sentence and the prohibition of torture.

As for the first issue, its evidence is derived from what was reported by Wa’il Ibn Hajr who said:

 جَاءَ رَجُلٌ مِنْ حَضْرَمَوْتَ وَرَجُلٌ مِنْ كِنْدَةَ إِلَى النَّبِيِّ «  ، فَ قَالَ الْحَضْرَمِيُّ: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ، إِنَّ هَذَا قَدْ غَلَبَنِي عَلَى أَرْضٍ لِي كَانَتْ لأَبِي، فَ قَالَ الْكِنْدِيُّ: هِيَ أَرْضِي فِي يَدِي أَزْرَعُهَا لَيْسَ لَهُ فِيهَا حَ ق، فَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ  لِلْحَضْرَمِيِّ: أَلَكَ بَ يِّ نَةٌ؟ قَالَ: لاَ، قَالَ: فَ لَكَ يَمِينُهُ، قَالَ: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ، إِنَّ الرَّجُلَ فَاجِرٌ لا ي بَُالِي عَلَى مَا حَلَفَ عَلَيْهِ » وَلَيْسَ يَ تَ وَرَّعُ مِنْ شَيْءٍ، فَ قَالَ: لَيْسَ لَكَ مِنْهُ إِلاَّ ذَلِكَ

“There came a person from Hadramaut and another from Kinda to the Prophet (pbuh) . One who had come from Hadramaut said: Messenger of Allah (pbuh), only this man has appropriated my land which belonged to my father. The one who had came from Kinda contended. This is my land and is in my possession: I cultivate it. There is no right for him in it. The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said to the Hadramite: Have you any evidence (to support you)? He replied in the negative. The Prophet (pbuh) said: Then your case is to be decided on his oath. He (the Hadramite) said: Messenger of Allah (pbuh), he is a liar and cares not what he swears and has no regard for anything. Upon this the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) remarked: For you then there is no other help to it.” He said: “You have no other rights over him but this” (reported by Muslim). He also said, “But, the onus of proof is upon the claimant, and the taking of an oath is upon him who denies.”(reported by Al-Bayhaqi with a Sahih chain). In the first narration, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) commissioned the plaintiff with the proof, and this means that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty; in the second narration, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) explained that in origin, the proof should be provided by the plaintiff. This serves as evidence that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

As for the second matter, its evidence is derived from the saying of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) ,

مَنْ أَخَذْتُ لَهُ مَالاً فَ هَذَا مَالِي فَ لْيَأْخُذْ مِنْهُ، وَمَنْ جَلَدْتُ لَهُ ظَهْراً فَ هَذَا ...« »... ظَهْ رِي فَ لْيَ قْتَصَّ مِنْه

“Whoseever property I have taken from, here is my property; let him take from it, and whosever back I have lashed, here is my back; let him lash it” (reported by Abu Ya’la from Al- Fadl bin ‘Abbas). Al-Haythami said that in the chain of Abu Ya’la Ata’ bin Muslim, who Ibn Hibban verified as trustworthy whereas others claimed he is weak, and the remainder of the men are trustworthy. It is narrated in Al-Mu’jam Al-Awsat of Al- Tabarani with the wording

"فَمَنْ كنتُ جَلَدْتُ لَهُ ظ هْراً فَهذا ظَهري فَ لْيَسْتَقِدْ مِنْهُ وَمَنْ كنتُ شَتَمْتُ لَهُ عِرْضاً فَهذا عِرْضي فَ لْيَسْتَقِدْ مِنْهُ ومَنْ كنتُ أَخَذْتُ له مالاً فهذا مالي فَ لْيَسْتَقِدْ منه"

“Whosever back I have lashed, here is my back, let him do the same to it, and whosever honour I have abused, here is my honour, let him do the same to it, and whosoever property I have taken from, here is my mine; let him do the same to it”. And in Ibn Kathir’s Al-Bidayah Wa-Nihayah it came with the wording

 "أَلا فَمَنْ كنتُ جَلَدْتُ له ظَهراً فهذا ظهري فَ لْيَسْتَقِدْ ومن كنت أخذت له مالا فهذا مالي فَ لْيَأْخُذْ منه ومن كنت شتمت له عِرْضاً فهذا عِرْضي فليستقد"

“Whosever back I have lashed, here is mine, let him do the same to it, and whosoever property I have taken from, here is mine, so take from it, and whosever honour I have abused, here is my honour, let him do the same”. The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said this in his capacity as a ruler; it means let the one who has been wrongly punished retaliate against me and this serves as evidence prohibiting the ruler from punishing any of the subjects without establishing the charge for which he deserves such punishment. Also, it is reported in the story of the Mula’anah (husband’s accusation of his spouse of adultery without witnesses) that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said

» لَوْ كُنْتُ رَاجِمًا أَحَدًا بِغَيْرِ بَ يِّ نَةٍ لَرَجَمْتُ هَا «

“If I were going to have anyone stoned without proof, I would stone her” (agreed upon and the wording is from Muslim), and this means that he did not stone her due to the absence of clear proof even though there was doubt over her. This understanding is confirmed by what is narrated by Ibn Abbas in the narration in which the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) ordered a Mula’anah to be carried out between the couple (refer to Quran 24: 4-9), where the text says “So a man at the gathering said to Ibn Abbas: “Is she the woman about whom the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said:

» لَوْ كُنْتُ رَاجِمًا أَحَدًا بِغَيْرِ بَ يِّ نَةٍ لَرَجَمْتُ هَا «

“If I were going to have anyone stoned without proof, I would stone such?”

He said: “No, that was a woman who arouse suspicion by her outright misbehavior” (agreed upon), meaning that she used to be indiscreet but it was not proven; neither through evidence and nor through admission. This means that the suspicion of adultery was there, but despite this the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) did not stone her, for it had not been confirmed, and so he said:

» لَوْ كُنْتُ رَاجِمًا أَحَدًا بِغَ يْرِ بَ يِّ نَةٍ لَرَجَمْ تُ هَا «

“If I were to stone anyone, I would have her stoned”. The conjunction “if” in the Arabic language denotes abstention due to the absence of something, thus the stoning was not carried out due to the absence of evidence. This serves as evidence that the ruler is forbidden from imposing a penalty on anyone from among the subjects, unless he or she perpetrates a crime which the Shari’ah deems to be a crime, and once his or her perpetration of the crime has been proven before a competent judge and in a court of law, because the evidence could not be admissible unless it is established before a competent judge and in a court of law.

However, the ruler reserves the right to take someone accused of a crime into custody before the charge is established, pending a court appearance to look into the charge brought against him. However, the detention should be for a limited period of time and it would be wrong to detain the accused for an indefinite period. This period must be short. Evidence about the permissibility of detaining the accused is derived from what Al- Tirmidhi reported in a Hasan narration, which Ahmad also reported, and Al-Hakim stated that the narration has a Sahih chain, on the authority of Bahz bin Hakim on that of his father on that of his grandfather who said:

 » حَبَسَ رَجُلاً فِي تُ هْمَةٍ، ثُمَّ خَلَّى عَنْه  أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ «

“The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) detained a person accused of a crime and then he released him.” It has also been reported similarly by Al-Hakim on the authority of Abu Hurayrah that

» حَبَسَ فِي تُ هْمَةٍ ي وَْماً وَلَيْ لَة  أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ «

“The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) detained someone accused of a crime for a day and a night”, and though the chain includes Ibrahim bin Khaitam who there is dispute over, it has also been reported though other chains by Al-Bayhaqi in Al-Kubra and Ibn Al-Jarud in Al-Muntaqi on the authority of Bahzi bin Hakim bin Mu’awiyah on that of his father on that of his grandfather:

حَ بَسَ رَجُلاً في تُ هْمَةٍ ساعةً مِنْ نَهارٍ ثُمَّ خَلَّى عنه"  "أنَّ النبيَّ

“The Prophet (pbuh) detained someone accused of a crime for an hour during the day and then released him”. All of this is evidence about the obligation of limiting the period of detention, and that it should be for the shortest time possible, since the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) detained him for a day and a night, and that he detained him for an hour during the day. Besides, this detention is not a punishment, but it is rather a detention aimed at helping with the enquiries.

As for the third matter, it denotes the prohibition of imposing a penalty upon the accused before the charge against him has been established; it also denotes the prohibition of imposing a penalty which Allah (swt) has made as a punishment in the hereafter, that is the Hellfire, in other words, the prohibition of punishing by burning with fire. As for the prohibition of inflicting a punishment before establishing the charge, its evidence is derived from the narration of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) in which he was reported to have said

 » لَوْ كُنْتُ رَاجِمًا أَحَدًا بِغَيْرِ بَ يِّ نَةٍ لَرَجَمْتُ هَا «

“If I were to have someone stoned without proof, I would have her stoned” (agreed upon from the narration of Ibn Abbas), despite the fact that she was known to be an adulteress according to what is understood from the words of Ibn Abbas. If it were fitting to inflict punishment upon the accused in order to make them confess, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) would have tortured that woman to make her confess, knowing that she was indiscreet about her illicit behaviour. It is absolutely forbidden to punish the accused and ,therefore, it is forbidden to beat the accused before the charge has been established. It is also forbidden to insult him or to inflict upon him any punishment as long as his guilt has not been confirmed. This is supported by what has been narrated from Ibn Abbas:

 فَ لَمَّا  شَرِبَ رَجُلٌ فَسَكِرَ، فَ لُقِيَ يَمِيلُ فِي الْفَجِّ، فَانْطُلِقَ بِهِ إِلَى النَّبِيِّ «  حَاذَى بِدَارِ الْعَبَّاسِ انْ فَلَتَ فَدَخَلَ عَلَى الْعَبَّاسِ فَالْتَ زَمَ هُ، فَذُكِرَ ذَلِكَ لِلنَّبِيِّ » فَضَحِكَ وَقَالَ: أَفَ عَلَهَا وَلَمْ يَأْمُرْ فِيهِ بِشَيْءٍ

“A man who had drunk wine and become intoxicated was found staggering on the road, so he was taken to the Prophet (pbuh) . When he was opposite Al-Abbas's house, he escaped, and entered Al-Abbas’s house, so he grasped hold of him. When that was mentioned to the Prophet (pbuh) , he laughed and said: Did he do that? and he gave no command regarding him.” (reported by Abu Dawud and Ahmad, with the wording from Abu Dawud). So the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) did not apply the punishment upon that man because he did not confess and nor were the charges against him established in his presence. This means that he was accused of drunkenness but this was not confirmed and thus he was not tortured in order to make him confess and no penalty was imposed upon him just for the mere accusation. Therefore, it would be wrong to inflict any punishment on the accused prior to the establishment of the charge before a competent judge and in a court of law.

As for the reports of “Al-Ifk” (the lie) incident that ‘Ali (ra) beat the slave-girl before the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) , it should be recognised that the slave-girl was not accused, thus it cannot be used as evidence denoting the permissibility of beating the accused. Besides the narration of ‘Ali’s (ra) beating of Burayrah, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh)’s slave-girl, was reported by Bukhari and he said that ‘Ali (ra) said to the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) “Ask the slave-girl”. It was the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) who did the asking. Bukhari did not mention that ‘Ali (ra) had beaten the slave-girl. To quote from the narration

 وَأَمَّا عَلِيُّ بْنُ أَبِي طَالِبٍ فَ قَالَ: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ، لَمْ يُضَيِّقِ اللَّهُ عَلَيْكَ وَالنِّسَاءُ، « بَرِيرَةَ فَ قَالَ:  سِوَاهَا كَثِيرٌ، وَإِنْ تَسْأَلِ الْجَارِيَةَ تَصْدُقْكَ، قَالَتْ: فَدَعَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ » أَيْ بَرِيرَة

“‘Ali bin Abi Talib said O Messenger of Allah (pbuh) , Allah has not made it hard upon you and there are plenty of other women other her, and if you ask the slave-girl, she will tell you the truth.” So the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) summoned the slavegirl and said: “O Burayrah!…” In another narration from Al- Bukhari, it was reported:

بَ يْتِي فَسَأَلَ عَنِّي خَادِمَتِي، فَ قَالَتْ: لاَ وَاللَّهِ، مَا  وَلَقَدْ جَاءَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ « عَلِمْتُ عَلَيْ هَا عَيْبًا إِلاَّ أَن هََّا كَانَتْ تَ رْقُدُ حَتَّى تَدْخُلَ الشَّاةُ فَ تَأْكُلَ خَمِيرَهَا أَوْ عَجِينَ هَا، » حَتَّى أَسْقَطُوا لَهَا بِهِ  وَانْ تَ هَرَهَا بَ عْضُ أَصْحَابِهِ فَ قَالَ: اصْدُقِي رَسُولَ اللَّهِ

“The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) came to my house and asked about my slave-girl; she said: “No by Allah, I do not know of any fault in her other than that she would sleep to the point that the sheep would enter and eat her dough. Some of his companions rebuked her and said: “Tell the truth to the Messenger of Allah (pbuh)…”, and Al-Bukhari did not mention that ‘Ali (ra) had beaten the slave-girl. However, in other reports, it was mentioned that ‘Ali (ra) had beaten the slave-girl. Ibn Hisham mentioned that he did beat her. In the Sirah of Ibn Hisham it was reported:

وَأَمَّا عَلِيٌ فَإِنَّهُ قَالَ: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ إِنَّ النِّسَاءَ كَثِيرٌ، وَإِنَّكَ لَقَادِرٌ عَلَى أَنْ « بَرِيرَةَ لِيَسْ أَلَهَا،  تَسْ تَخْ لِ فَ، وَسَ لِ الْجَ ارِيَ ةَ فَإِن هََّا سَ تَ صْ دُقُ كَ، فَدَعَا رَسُ ولُ اللَّهِ ، فَ قَامَ إِلَيْ هَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ أَبِي طَالِبٍ فَضَ رَبَ هَا ضَرْباً شَدِيداً وَيَ قُولُ: اصْدُقِي رَسُ ولَ اللَّهِ » قَ الَ تْ، فَ تَ قُولُ: واللَّهِ مَا أَعْلَمُ إِلاَّ خَيْر اً

“As for ‘Ali, he said: “O Messenger of Allah (pbuh) Women are many, and you can easily take one for another. Ask the slave-girl, for she will tell you the truth.” So the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) called Burayrah to ask her, and ‘Ali got up and gave her a violent beating, and said: “Tell the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) the truth.” To which she replied: “I know only good of her”. Assuming that this report is sound, it however does not stipulate the permissibility of beating the accused, because the slave-girl Burayrah was not accused in this case and it cannot be said that she was a witness. She was not beaten for being a witness because the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) did ask other people but did not beat them. He asked Zaynab Bint Jahsh and he did not beat her, despite the fact that her sister Hamnah Bint Jahsh used to spread rumours about 'Aisha (ra) as Al-Bukahri reported in the narration of Al-Ifk:

» قَالَتْ وَطَفِقَتْ أُخْتُ هَا حَمْنَةُ تُحَارِبُ لَهَا، فَ هَلَكَتْ فِيمَنْ هَلَكَ «

“She said: her sister Hamna set about fighting her battle; she perished alongside those who perished”. Hence, Zaynab was suspected of knowing something and she was questioned, but she was never beaten. Therefore, it would be wrong to say that Burayrah was beaten in her quality as a witness; rather, she was rather beaten in her quality as the slave-girl of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) . The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) is entitled to beat his slave-girl and to order her beating. The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) did ask his slave-girl and he asked others as well and at the same time he kept silent over Ali’s (ra) beating of the slavegirl and over the companions reprimanding her. However he did not beat any other person and nor did he keep silent over the beating of any other person, which indicates that he permitted her beating because she was his slave-girl, and one is entitled to beat his slave-girl in order to discipline her or to investigate a matter. Therefore, this narration cannot be used as evidence about the permissibility of beating the accused and the evidence pertaining to the prohibition of his beating stands; this is reflected in the saying of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) :

 » لَوْ كُنْتُ رَاجِمًا أَحَدًا بِغَيْرِ بَ يِّ نَةٍ لَرَجَمْتُ هَا «

“If I were to stone someone without proof, I would have her stoned.” (agreed upon from Ibn Abbas). Therefore, it is absolutely forbidden to beat, insult, reprimand or torture the accused. It is however permitted to detain him because evidence exists about this. This is as far as the prohibition of inflicting punishment upon the accused prior to establishing the charge is concerned. As for the prohibition of inflicting a punishment which Allah (swt) has made a punishment in the Hereafter, its evidence is reflected in what Al-Bukhari reported on the authority of ‘Ikrimah who said:

 أُتِيَ عَلِ ي رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ بِزَنَادِقَةٍ فَأَحْرَقَ هُمْ، فَ بَ لَغَ ذَلِكَ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ فَ قَالَ: لَوْ « » لاَ تُ عَذِّبُوا بِعَذَابِ اللَّهِ  كُنْتُ أَنَا لَمْ أُحْرِقْ هُمْ لِنَ هْيِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ

“Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to `Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn `Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Prophet (phuh) forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).”. Al-Bukhari narrated on the authority of Abu Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said

» وَإِنَّ النَّارَ لا ي عَُذِّبُ بِهَا إِلاَّ اللَّه «

“it is none but Allah Who punishes with fire”. Abu Dawud reported from the narration of Ibn Mas’ud with the words,

» فَإِنَّهُ لا ي عَُذِّبُ بِالنَّارِ إِلاَّ رَبُّ النَّارِ «

“for no one punishes with fire except the Lord of the fire”. Therefore, if the accused was brought before a competent judge in a court of law and shown to have committed the crime he was accused of, he should not be punished by fire, nor by that which is similar to it, such as electricity and nor by anything else which Allah (swt) punishes with. Furthermore, it is forbidden to inflict any punishment from among those not decreed by the Legislator (swt). This is so because the Legislator (swt) has determined the punishments to be imposed upon the guilty parties, and these are killing, lashing, stoning, exile, cutting, and imprisonment, destruction of property, imposing a fine, vilification and branding any part of the body. Apart from these, it is forbidden to inflict any other type of punishment upon anyone. Hence, no one should be punished by burning with fire, though it is permitted to burn his property, and nor should anyone be punished by pulling his nails, nor by pulling his eyebrows, nor by electrocution, nor by drowning, nor by pouring cold water over him, nor by starving him, nor by letting him go cold and nor by anything similar. Punishing the accused should be confined to the penalties decreed by the Shari’ah and the ruler is forbidden from applying any other form of punishment apart from these. Therefore, it is absolutely forbidden to torture anyone, and whoever does so will be violating the Shari’ah. If it is established that someone has tortured anyone else, he will be punished. These are the evidences of this article.