Sajjad Akbar
MPhil Researcher, Department of Theology and Philosophy, Al-Azhar University, Cairo
(Part four of a five-part series. The previous part asked whether keeping the trial secret conflicts with Islamic principles of justice. This part examines that question in detail.)
a) The Rights of the Condemned and His Family: Is Keeping the Verdict Secret and Not Informing the Family Consistent with the Shariah?
Nazrul's family learned of his death from the media. Just three days before the execution, he had spoken to his mother by phone. Yet for what offence, on what evidence and by what reasoning their son's life was taken, the family still does not know. They did not even know he would be executed. Even now there is no instruction regarding the repatriation of his body.
The Shariah does not view a person sentenced to death merely as a criminal; he is a Muslim whose rights in this world and the next remain until death.
– Preparing a will and repentance: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said that a Muslim with something to bequeath should not spend two nights without his will written down (Bukhari). For someone whose day of death the state has set, this preparation is all the more urgent.
– Involving relatives and community: When Ma'iz (RA) confessed to zina, the Prophet ﷺ asked the people of his tribe whether his mind was sound (Muslim). He involved the accused's acquaintances before carrying out the punishment.
– The family's right to the funeral and burial: Among the rights of one Muslim over another is attending his funeral (Muslim). The jurists have discussed in detail the priority of close relatives in washing, praying over and burying the deceased. When the family was not even told of the death, one hesitates to ask about the other rights. We do not know whether Nazrul himself was told in advance, or could make a will or pray. But that his family was kept entirely in the dark is an established fact. By these Shariah standards, this is a clear deficiency in the humane dimension of justice.
b) Transparency of Justice and Accountability Before the Ummah
– Open courts: In the Islamic tradition, justice was not a matter for closed rooms. From the Prophetic era, judges usually sat in the mosque or in public places, open to anyone. If information about crimes and verdicts does not reach the people, how will they learn from it? And without deterrence (zajr), the basic purpose of punishment is lost.
– Written records: Verdicts were recorded in writing and given to the parties when needed.
– The right of defence: When sending Ali (RA) as a judge, the Prophet ﷺ told him not to rule without hearing the other party (Tirmidhi). From this the Maliki jurists derived the principle of i'dhar: before ruling, the judge asks the accused whether he has any further argument or evidence.
– Seeking out doubt: Even after Ma'iz (RA) confessed, the Prophet ﷺ repeatedly asked: "Perhaps you only kissed, or touched, or looked?" (Bukhari). The judge's duty is not only to find grounds for punishment, but to look for doubts that avert it.
– Public execution of punishment: The Qur'an commands regarding the hadd for zina: "And let a group of the believers witness their punishment." (al-Nur, 24:2) Witnessing that it is carried out according to Allah's law is part of its purpose.
Admittedly, no explicit text requires public disclosure of a judge's full written reasoning. But open trials, the right of defence, written records and public punishment all serve one purpose: keeping justice accountable. Here we see the opposite.
– Unknown evidence: Was guilt established by four witnesses, a confession, or something else? No one knows. According to one journalist's unverified claim, the main evidence was a secretly recorded video. If so, evidence open to editing or deepfakes itself creates doubt. Can the maximum punishment rest on such evidence?
– The question of defence: Nazrul's mother said that because of the language barrier, her son at first could not explain anything to anyone. Whether there was an interpreter or lawyer, we do not know, and no way was left to find out. That is precisely the problem.
– Silence in the prisoner list: Even in the prisoner list two weeks before the execution, the sentence field for these two men was blank.
Under such secrecy, neither scholars, researchers nor ordinary Muslims can verify whether the law of Allah was properly applied.
Next and final part: The limits of the ruler's authority, and conclusion
