Some circulate a fatwa attributed to Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, in which he allegedly permitted killing one-third of the population for the other two-thirds to live in peace, security, prosperity, and stability!
We need to address this fatwa with the following points:
First: This fatwa is fabricated in its attribution to Imam Malik. Imam Malik, known as “Shaykh al-Islam,” “Hujjat al-Ummah,” “Imam Dar al-Hijrah,” “Mufti of Hijaz,” “Faqih of the Ummah,” and “Master of the Imams.” He combined expertise in hadith and jurisprudence. He excelled in both disciplines, to the extent that hadith scholars considered him a master of hadith, while jurists regarded him as a leading jurist. His eminence in hadith is evident in his famous book Al-Muwatta’, and his prominence in jurisprudence is established by his well-known school of thought in Islamic jurisprudence, “The Maliki School.”
Second: The fatwa is invalid based on Sharia evidence that strongly affirms the sanctity of human life, regardless of a person's religious beliefs. Allah says, “Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.” (Al-Ma'idah: 32)
The sanctity of Muslim blood in particular is further emphasized: “And never is it for a believer to kill a believer except by mistake.” (An-Nisa: 92)
“But whoever kills a believer intentionally - his recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide eternally, and Allah has become angry with him and has cursed him and has prepared for him a great punishment.” (An-Nisa: 93)
Additionally, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said during the Farewell Hajj: “So he said: 'Indeed, your blood, your wealth, your honor, is as sacred for you as the sacredness of this day of yours, in this city of yours, in this month of yours. Behold! None commits a crime but against himself, none offends a father for a son, nor a son for a father. Behold! Indeed the Muslim is the brother of the Muslim, so it is not lawful for the Muslim to do anything to his brother, which is not lawful to be done to himself.” (Sahih at-Tirmidhi, 3087)
Third: The precise methodology in scholarly research dictates that opinions of each school of thought should be derived from the writings of its adherents not others. For instance, it is neither just nor scientifically accurate to use Maliki sources to define a Shafi’i ruling. Instead, one must refer to Shafi’i sources for such clarification. This principle of fairness is essential for scholarly accuracy.
When we examine this claim attributed to Imam Malik by referring to the sources of the Maliki school itself, we find that Maliki scholars categorically deny this attribution to Imam Malik. They refute it as baseless in their writings. Let us cite an example from a prominent Maliki scholar, Imam Shihab al-Din al-Qarafi, may Allah have mercy on him, who said: “As for what has been reported about permitting bloodshed and confiscation of wealth as claimed, the Malikis do not support such a claim about Imam Malik. Similarly, what has been attributed to Imam Malik in Al-Burhan—that he permits killing a third of the population for the benefit of the other two-thirds—this is strongly denied by the Malikis. It is not found in their books but rather comes from books of opponents who misattribute it to him.” (1)
Ibn al-Shamma’ also stated: “What Imam al-Haramayn narrated was not transmitted by any of the Maliki scholars nor by their narrators. It was merely an imposition by him, and there is clear inconsistency in his recounting of the matter, as evident in Al-Burhan.” (2)
The claim attributed to Imam Malik was merely based on what some assumed to be his methodology. This was clarified by Imam Abu Bakr Ibn al-Arabi, who said: “Hanafis and Shafi’is from Khurasan attributed to Malik the statement that the destruction of some of the population for the benefit of the rest is obligatory.
He is innocent of this claim. Rather, they heard from his statement about considering public interest and interpreted it according to their assumptions until they exaggerated it to such an extent. It would have been more appropriate for them—given their esteemed status in knowledge, their vast learning, and their precise understanding—to discern his true intent regarding public interest, to apply it within its proper context, and to restrict it to its appropriate limits. (3)
Similarly, Sheikh Muhammad al-Amin al-Shanqiti affirmed: “The claim that Malik permitted killing a third of the population for the welfare of the other two-thirds or allowed amputation in discretionary punishments is baseless. Malik never said this, and it is not reported by any of his companions nor found in any books of the Maliki school, as clarified by al-Qarafi, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Banani, and others. We’ve studied Maliki school long enough to know this claim is invalid” (4)
Sheikh Al-Shanqiti also said: “What the author mentioned about Malik permitting the killing of a third to benefit the other two-thirds was mentioned by Al-Juwayni and others about Malik. However, it is not correct, and none of Malik’s companions transmitted this from him, nor did Malik say it, as confirmed by the scholar Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Banani in his commentary on Abdul-Baqi al-Zarqani’s explanation of Mukhtasar Khalil.” (5)
Many scholars from outside the Maliki school have also defended Imam Malik in this regard.
Al-Tufi said: “It has been claimed that Malik permitted killing a third of the people for the benefit of the other two-thirds, but the Sharia’s preservation of their welfare in this manner is not known. I have not found this reported in the Maliki texts I reviewed, and I asked several of their distinguished scholars, who said they do not know of it.” (6)
Al-Zarkashi stated: “Imam Al-Juwayni said in Al-Burhan: 'He exaggerated in this opinion to the point where it led him to permit killing and taking wealth for interests that, in most cases, were only assumed without clear evidence.' Others also attributed this as an old opinion of Al-Shafi’i.”
Abu Al-‘Iz Al-Muqtarah wrote in his commentary on Al-Burhan: “This opinion has not been authentically transmitted from Malik. His companions have stated this explicitly, and Ibn Shas also denied it in Al-Tahrir about the Imam, stating that his views should be taken from his books and the works of his companions, not from other narrators.” (7)
It has been mentioned by one of the prominent Maliki scholars, Al-Mazari, in a way that may appear to confirm Al-Juwayni's transmission about Malik in this matter. In Al-Tawdih, he said: “Abu Al-Ma'ali mentioned that Malik often bases his legal reasoning on public interests and stated that he permits killing a third of the general populace for the benefit of the other two-thirds. Al-Mazari said: 'What Abu Al-Ma'ali reported about Malik is correct.'”
However, in some versions of Al-Tawdih, and refer to Al-Qarafi’s commentary at the end of Sharh Al-Mahsul, where he elaborates well on the topic of unrestricted public interests (masalih mursala). He refuted what Imam Al-Haramayn (Al-Juwayni) attributed to Malik, stating that it is not found in Maliki texts. (8)
Upon closer examination, it becomes evident that Al-Mazari did not intend to validate the opinion that Malik permitted killing a third of the populace. Rather, he was affirming the first part of Al-Juwayni’s statement: that Malik often built his legal judgments on public interests.
O Allah, show us the truth as truth and grant us the ability to follow it, and show us falsehood as falsehood and grant us the ability to avoid it. O Allah, preserve the lives of Muslims everywhere.
-------------------------------------------------------------
- Nafa'is al-Usul fi Sharh al-Mahsul, 9/4092.
- Manh Al-Jalil Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 7/513.
- Al-Qabas fi Sharh al-Muwatta’, 3/932.
- Al-Masalih al-Mursalah, 1/10.
- Mudhakkirah fi Usul al-Fiqh, 1/203.
- Sharh Mukhtasar Ar-Rawdah, 3/211.
- Al-Bahr al-Muhit fi Usul al-Fiqh, 8/84.
- Mawahib al-Jalil, 5/430.
Read the Article in Arabic
