حضرت ابو بکر صدیق اور حضرت عمر رضی اللہ عنہما کی تعزیری پالیسیوں میں فقہی اور عملی فرق و شبہات

JURISPRUDENTIAL AND PRACTICAL DIFFERENCES AND AMBIGUITIES IN THE DISCIPLINARY (TA‘ZIR) POLICIES OF HAZRAT ABU BAKR SIDDIQ (RA) AND HAZRAT UMAR FAROOQ (RA)

Abstract

   This study provides a comprehensive analysis of the disciplinary (ta‘zir) policies of Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA) and Hazrat Umar Farooq (RA), focusing on their jurisprudential (fiqhī) and practical differences as well as related ambiguities. Considering the principles of Islamic criminal law and the objectives of Shariah (maqasid al-shariah), the research examines the methodologies, ijtihad (independent reasoning), and decisions of both Caliphs. The study begins with the jurisprudential and foundational background of ta‘zir, highlighting the distinctions between hudud, qisas, and ta‘zir, and elaborating on the Shariah basis for discretionary punishments. During the caliphate of Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA), the implementation of ta‘zir was marked by leniency and caution, wherein punishments were enforced only when crimes posed a clear threat to social or religious order. In contrast, Hazrat Umar (RA) applied strictness, deterrence, and financial punishments in light of the expanding and diverse Islamic state. Decisions such as the suspension of hudud during times of famine reflect that the application of severity or leniency was dependent on social circumstances and the nature of the crime, rather than personal discretion.

     The study also explores the Shariah status of the Companions’ (Sahaba) ijtihad, addresses objections raised by Orientalists, and examines the perspectives of various Islamic jurisprudential schools (madhahib). The findings demonstrate that the Caliphs’ disciplinary decisions were jurisprudentially valid, ethically sound, and aligned with the objectives of Shariah, while apparent differences were primarily due to contextual, practical, and societal considerations, not doctrinal contradictions.The research concludes that the ta‘zir policies of the Rightly Guided Caliphs constituted a flexible, ijtihad-based, and principle-oriented system, providing valuable guidance for Islamic criminal law and governance. By combining jurisprudential analysis, historical evidence, and practical application, this study clarifies the nature and objectives of the Caliphs’ disciplinary measures, offering insights relevant to modern Islamic studies, Shariah implementation, and judicial administration.