Allama Dr. Shaykh Hami (Hh)
Sheikh Sameer Manzoor:
anchored in revelation and meticulously structured jurisprudence. Allama Dr. Shaykh Ghulam Rasool Hami, a prominent contemporary Islamic scholar from Kashmir known for his integration of classical scholarship with modern humanitarian efforts, consistently underscores that Shariah-based
with justice” (Quran 4:58). Classical exegetes like Ibn Kathir and Al-Tabari interpret this verse
as a direct admonition to those vested with authority, emphasizing that judicial power is not a
universal entitlement but a delegation reserved for the qualified. Additional tafsir from
Al-Qurtubi reinforces that justice must be impartial, free from favoritism, and rooted in divine
equity, warning against the perils of biased rulings that could lead to societal discord. Islamic
legal theory (Usul al-Fiqh) delineates judgment as the precise application of divine law to specific cases by a duly qualified authority. The juristic tradition across schools unanimously stipulates that a judge must meet rigorous intellectual, ethical, and procedural criteria. Imam Abu Hanifa, founder of the Hanafi school, maintained that a Qadi requires mastery over the Quran, Hadith, ijma (consensus), qiyas (analogy), and foundational juristic principles, coupled with the capacity for ijtihad (independent reasoning) when exigencies arise. In Hanafi classics such as Al-Hidayah by Al-Marghinani and Fatawa al-Hindiyyah, it is explicitly stated that judicial
ignorance nullifies rulings and may equate to outright injustice. Imam al-Shafi in his Risalah
further systematizes these requirements, emphasizing linguistic competence, knowledge of naskh (abrogation), and awareness of scholarly consensus to prevent erroneous interpretations. He
(Allama Shaykh Hami) draws upon these classical benchmarks to illustrate that Islamic scholarship historically demanded decades of rigorous, disciplined study before entrusting individuals with authority over others rights, lives, and honors. This emphasis on prolonged preparation underscores the gravity of judicial roles, preventing hasty or unqualified interventions. Historical precedents further illuminate these qualifications. In medieval Islamic societies, such as under the Abbasid Caliphate, judges were often required to demonstrate not only scholarly prowess but also practical wisdom. For instance, in Saudi Arabia’s Sharia courts, even today, candidates must hold a degree in Islamic law from recognized institutions, reflecting a continuity of classical standards. Similarly, in the Philippines Shariah courts, applicants undergo specialized training to ensure competence in Islamic jurisprudence, highlighting the procedural emphasis on qualification. These examples demonstrate how Islamic judicial systems
have evolved while preserving core prerequisites like rationality, maturity, sensory integrity, and
profound legal knowledge, as unanimously agreed upon by jurists. Ibn Taymiyyah, in his works
on governance, adds that a Qadi must be free from any conflict of interest, ensuring decisions are
made solely for Allah’s pleasure.
Beyond intellectual prerequisites, moral integrity (adalah) stands as an indispensable pillar.
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal in his Al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah enumerates ethical imperatives for
judges: upright character, abstinence from major sins, emotional equilibrium, and immunity to
bribery or prejudice. These safeguards ensure that judges are not only erudite but also morally
impeccable. The Prophetصلى الله عليه وسلمissued a stark warning: “The judges are of three types: one
in Paradise and two in Hell…” (Sunan Abu Dawud). The salvaged one is he who discerns
truth and adjudicates accordingly. He (Shaykh Hami) interprets this narration as evidence of the
spiritual peril inherent in judicial roles, demanding taqwa (fear of Allah) over ambition for
power. Imam al-Ghazali in Ihya Ulum al-Din further elaborates that a judge’s ethical soundness
involves humility, patience, and a commitment to truth, cautioning that arrogance or haste
corrupts justice. The Quran institutionalizes authority further: “O you who believe, obey Allah,
obey the Messenger, and those in authority among you” (Quran 4:59). Classical jurists, including
Al-Razi and Al-Qurtubi, construed “those in authority” (ulu al-amr) to encompass legitimate
rulers and appointed judges. Thus, legal authority is hierarchical and delegated, not anarchic. He
(Shaykh Hami) stresses that Islam rejects freelance verdicts, as they erode Shariah’s institutional
protections. Justice operates within structured systems, not through vigilante mobs or viral social
media accusations. In early Islamic history, under Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab, judicial reforms
separated executive and judicial powers, appointing dedicated qadis to handle cases while
governors focused on administration. This separation ensured procedural fairness, a model
echoed in later dynasties like the Abbasids and Ottomans, where courts scrutinized evidence,
cross-examined witnesses, and documented rulings under scholarly oversight. Modern
adaptations, such as in Malaysia’s Shariah courts, continue this tradition by incorporating
technology for case management while upholding classical principles.
The soundness of a Qadi should be that he must be encompassing intellectual acuity, moral
fortitude, and emotional stability and that is paramount in Islamic jurisprudence. Classical
scholars like Al-Mawardi in Al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah outline seven essential conditions:
knowledge of Shariah, integrity, freedom, maturity, sanity, sensory capability, and male gender
(though some modern interpretations debate the latter in light of equity). A sound judge must
embody adl (justice), being free from slander, heresy, or moral lapses, as emphasized by Imam
Malik, who viewed true knowledge as a “light in the heart” enabling discerning judgment.
Emotional soundness ensures impartiality under pressure; the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم advised judges to
avoid rulings in states of anger or hunger (Sahih al-Bukhari). He (Shaykh Hami) expands this to
contemporary contexts, stressing resilience against public opinion or media influence.
Responsibilities of a Qadi are multifaceted, extending beyond adjudication. They include
resolving civil and criminal disputes, managing waqfs (endowments), overseeing orphans affairs,
solemnizing marriages for those without guardians, and enforcing public morals (hisbah). A Qadi
must hear both parties equitably, verify evidence meticulously, and issue enforceable rulings. In
Al-Hidayah, it is noted that judges prioritize urgent cases, such as those involving personal harm,
and document proceedings for accountability. Ibn Qudamah in Al-Mughni adds duties like
cross-examining witnesses and consulting experts, ensuring no undue delay. Modern scholars
like Yusuf al-Qaradawi emphasize adapting these to current needs, such as incorporating forensic
evidence while maintaining Shariah primacy. A cornerstone of Islamic ethics is the prohibition of
baseless suspicion. Allah commands: “O you who believe, avoid much suspicion. Indeed,
some suspicion is sin” (Quran 49:12). This verse, as expounded by Al-Qurtubi, targets
unwarranted negative assumptions that erode communal trust. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم reinforced:
“Beware of suspicion, for suspicion is the most false of speech” (Sahih al-Bukhari and
Sahih Muslim). He (Shaykh Hami) posits that suspicion begets slander, which in turn
fosters injustice, aligning with the Quranic directive to discipline inner assumptions.
Additional Hadiths elaborate: “Avoid suspicion, for suspicion is the gravest lie in talk and
do not be inquisitive about one another” (Sahih Muslim 2563a). Imam Ali (RA) advised:
“Justify your brother’s action in the best way unless you know otherwise” (from Nahj
al-Balagha). Ibn Hibban in his Sahih further warns against acting on unverified reports, linking it
to communal harmony. The slander against Sayyida Aisha (RA) in Surah An-Nur exemplifies
Quranic condemnation of fabricated narratives: “Indeed, those who came with falsehood are a
group among you… Do not think it bad for you; rather it is good for you” (Quran 24:11). This
episode, as highlighted by him (Shaykh Hami), serves as an eternal caution that even pious
communities are vulnerable to misinformation, often weaponized by hypocrisy to fracture unity.
Islamic law imposes stringent evidentiary thresholds. For accusations, Allah demands: “Why did they not produce four witnesses?” (Quran 24:13), with false accusers facing lashing (Quran
24:4). This qadhf penalty safeguards honor, as reputational harm can devastate societies. The
Prophetصلى الله عليه وسلم‘s maxim: “The burden of proof is upon the claimant, and the oath is upon the one who denies” (Sunan al-Bayhaqi) governs procedure. He (Shaykh Hami) affirms that Islam favors suspending judgment over erroneous rulings. Additional verses like Quran 17:36 (“Do not
pursue that of which you have no knowledge”) reinforce evidence-based inquiry. Verification
(tabayyun) is another bulwark i.e “If a wicked person brings you news, verify it, lest you
harm people out of ignorance and become regretful” (Quran 49:6). Classical scholars viewed
this as epistemological bedrock. The Maliki tradition, via Imam Malik, stressed contextual
insight alongside textual expertise: “Knowledge is not abundant narration but a light placed in
the heart.” He (Shaykh Hami) describes this as Quranic responsible communication, where
acting sans verification equates to ignorance, while patient inquiry embodies piety. Ibn Kathir’s
tafsir on this verse highlights its application to all forms of news, including modern digital
transmissions. Imam al-Shafii systematized methodology in his Risalah, mandating linguistic
proficiency, abrogation knowledge, and consensus awareness for rulings. Such discipline
shielded law from superficiality. He (Shaykh Hami) warns that circumventing this reduces
Shariah to cherry-picked quotes. Imam Abu Yusuf exemplified fatwa caution, hesitating on
complex queries sans certainty, contrasting modern rash condemnations. Theologians like Imam
al-Ghazali in Ihya Ulum al-Din cautioned that wrongful accusations damage society and the
accuser’s soul, deeming honor preservation superior to optional worship. He (Shaykh Hami)
weaves this into modern discourse, framing dignity preservation as ibadah (worship). Al-Ashari
in his theological works adds that ethical restraint prevents fitnah (discord). The Quran exposes
hypocrites: “And when it is said to them, ‘Do not cause corruption on the earth,’ they say, ‘We
are but reformers’” (Quran 2:11). Shaykh Hami sees this as societal alert that hypocrisy
masquerades as activism, with fabricated tales pursuing fragmentation over reform. Islamic
civilization institutionalized courts with evidence scrutiny, witness interrogation, and
accountable rulings. This model debunks arbitrariness myths. He (Shaykh Hami) highlights
procedural rigor as authentic Shariah’s hallmark. Ultimately, absolute judgment is Allah’s: “The
judgment is only for Allah” (Quran 12:40). Human judges act as trustees within bounds.
In the contemporary era, Islamic judiciary faces unprecedented challenges from technological
advancements, particularly AI-generated deepfakes, voice morphing, and dubbing, which
exacerbate fabrication and misinformation. Deepfakes, AI-manipulated media that convincingly
alter images, videos, or audio and pose a direct threat to evidentiary integrity, echoing the
Quranic warnings against falsehood (Quran 24:11). Scholars like those in the Maqasid al-Shariah
framework argue that such technologies undermine hifz al-ird (protection of honor) and hifz al-aql (protection of intellect), necessitating proactive ethical guidelines rooted in Islamic values
like adl (justice), amanah (trustworthiness), and tabayyun (verification). For instance, AI
dubbing can fabricate speeches attributing false statements to religious figures, spreading
fitnah and eroding public trust, as seen in cases exploiting Islamic sentiments. He (Shaykh
Hami), in line with modern fatwas from institutions like Al-Azhar, emphasizes that judges
must adapt by consulting technical experts to detect manipulations, treating probable AI
evidence as circumstantial and variable in strength, subject to judicial discretion.
Challenges include regulatory gaps, algorithmic biases, and digital literacy deficits in
Muslim societies, which hinder fair adjudication. In Shariah courts, AI tools for fatwa
issuance or case analysis must be supervised by qualified muftis to avoid misinterpretations, as
warned by scholars like Lukman Hakim. Privacy invasions via digital surveillance challenge
Quranic privacy principles (Quran 49:12), requiring updated ijtihad for data protection. Solutions
involve harmonizing Shariah with tech governance, such as AI ethics protocols and cross-border
standards, ensuring technology serves maslahah (public interest) without compromising divine
law. He (Allama Shaykh Hami) concludes that Shariah entrusts judicial authority solely to
qualified, appointed, erudite, and upright individuals. Suspicion, rumor, defamation, and agendas are revelation-condemned. Believers must tame tongues, verify facts, consult authentic
scholarship, and eschew hidden motives. Islamic justice is evidence-driven, ethically rooted, and
divinely accountable and not reactionary, populist, or emotive. In facing modern tech challenges,
this timeless framework demands vigilant adaptation to preserve justice in the digital age.
