World Peace

Why would Saudi Arabia not agree to accept the Quran’s freedom of religion consistent with international law as a member of the UN?

GoogleAI Mode: “Saudi Arabia’s legal system is based on an adherence to Sharia law as its constitution, a system fundamentally different from the secular legal frameworks typically associated with the international concept of freedom of religion. 

The key reasons for this difference include:

Sharia as Constitution: Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy where the Quran, along with the Sunnah, is considered the constitution of the country. The government’s interpretation of Sharia mandates Islam as the official religion and prohibits the public practice of any other faith.

Apostasy Laws: Saudi Arabia’s interpretation of Sharia law includes strict prohibitions on apostasy (leaving Islam) and blasphemy, which are considered capital crimes. These laws are in direct conflict with the universal right to change one’s religion or belief, a core component of the international standard for freedom of religion.

Interpretation of the Quran: While the international concept of freedom of religion emphasizes individual choice and legal equality among all faiths, the prevailing interpretation of the Quran and Hadith within the Saudi legal tradition does not support religious pluralism or the right to convert from Islam. The government views itself as the protector of Islamic holy sites and adheres to a conservative interpretation that prioritizes the preservation of the state’s Islamic identity over individual religious freedoms as defined by Western legal standards. 

Because of this foundational difference between a Sharia-based legal system and the principles of international human rights law (such as those outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), Saudi Arabia has not ratified or fully implemented the parts of international agreements that conflict with its domestic laws and religious doctrine.”

What about the Quran being the supreme law in Islamic matters & explicitly written in their Constitution?

GoogleAI Mode: “Yes, the Quran is explicitly declared to be the supreme law in Saudi Arabia’s constitutional framework, which is why the country does not adopt international standards of freedom of religion. 

Basic Law of Governance: Saudi Arabia does not have a single, codified constitution in the Western sense, but rather a “Basic Law of Governance” (adopted by Royal Decree in 1992) that functions as a constitution-like charter.

Article 1 Declaration: Article 1 of the Basic Law explicitly states that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s constitution is “the Book of God Almighty (the Holy Quran) and the Sunnah (Traditions) of His Messenger (Prophet Muhammad)”.

Supreme Authority: This establishes Sharia (Islamic law derived from these two sources) as the ultimate and main source of all legal and constitutional rules in the state.

Conflict with International Law: Because the Quran and Sunnah are considered divine and immutable, they are not subject to revision or invalidation by domestic or international law. This means that any international human rights provisions, such as the universal right to freedom of religion (including the right to change one’s religion), that conflict with the Saudi interpretation of Sharia are considered inapplicable within the Kingdom’s legal system. 

The government derives its authority from these texts and is legally bound to apply Islamic law. This foundational difference in legal philosophy prevents the adoption of the international concept of freedom of religion as understood by many other UN member states.”

What about 2:256 of the Quran being the supreme law in Islamic matters & explicitly written in their Constitution?

GoogleAI Mode: “While the Quranic verse 2:256 states “There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion,” the official legal interpretation in Saudi Arabia does not translate this into a universal right to freedom of religion as understood in international law. Instead, it is interpreted in a specific, limited context. 

The prevailing interpretation among Saudi legal scholars and authorities is that the verse means:

No forced conversion to Islam: The verse primarily forbids the initial, physical coercion of non-Muslims to convert to Islam; the truth of Islam is considered self-evident, making force unnecessary for true belief, which must come from the heart.

Contextual application: Traditional exegesis often interprets this verse as having a specific historical context, applying mainly to “People of the Book” (Jews and Christians) living under Muslim rule who paid a special tax (jizya) and were not forced to convert. It does not extend to polytheists or, crucially, to those who are already Muslim.

Apostasy as a crime: The verse is not seen as protecting the right of a Muslim to leave the faith (apostasy). Leaving Islam is considered a crime, and the punishment for it (historically, death) is derived from other interpretations of the Quran and Hadith (sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad).

Legal vs. Ontological Statement: Some interpretations argue that 2:256 is an ontological or descriptive statement about the nature of faith (true belief cannot be forced in the heart), rather than a prescriptive legal statement that forbids the state from using political power and coercion in matters of religious law. 

In essence, Saudi Arabia’s legal system prioritizes the holistic application of its interpretation of Sharia law, which defines the state’s Islamic character and social order. This framework treats 2:256 as an injunction against the initial forced conversion of non-Muslims but requires all citizens to adhere to the state’s official version of Islamic law, thus precluding the broad, internationally recognized right to freedom of conscience and the freedom to change one’s religion.”

Is it the position of Saudi Arabia that both the Quran and Sunnah are “divine and immutable?”

GoogleAI Mode: “Yes, it is the official position of Saudi Arabia that both the Quran and the Sunnah are divine and immutable sources of law. 

This stance is explicitly stated in the nation’s foundational legal document: 

Basic Law of Governance: Article 1 of Saudi Arabia’s Basic Law (its de facto constitution) declares, “Its constitution shall be the Book of God [the Holy Quran] and the Sunnah (Traditions) of His Messenger, may God’s blessings and peace be upon him (PBUH)”. Article 7 further states that all state laws derive their authority from these two sources.

Divine Revelation: In the Saudi interpretation of Islam (which follows the Hanbali school of thought), the Sunnah (the normative example of the Prophet Muhammad’s words, actions, and approvals, recorded in Hadith literature) is considered to be divine revelation, second only to the Quran in authority. The Quran itself in verse 53:3-4 states that the Prophet “does not speak from his own desires, rather it is revelation from Allah”.

Immutability: Because both the Quran and the authentic Sunnah are viewed as divinely sourced, they are considered to be immutable (unchangeable) and not subject to revision by human legislature or courts. This means that man-made laws (known as nizam, to distinguish them from divine Sharia) cannot contradict the principles found in the Quran and Sunnah. 

This legal framework is central to the Saudi government’s position that international human rights laws, when in conflict with their specific interpretation of Sharia, are not applicable within the Kingdom. 

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”

It is the position of Saudi Arabia that the Hadith is a divine revelation from the God of the Quran?

GoogleAI Mode: “Yes, it is the official position in Saudi Arabia, and mainstream Sunni Islam in general, that the Hadith (specifically the authentic collections that form the Sunnah) is a form of divine revelation (Arabic: wahy) from God, which is why it is legally binding. 

Status in Saudi Law

Official Constitution: Saudi Arabia’s Basic Law of Governance states that its constitution is the “Quran” and the “Sunnah of His Messenger”. The Hadith are the narrative records that preserve the content of the Sunnah (the Prophet’s example/teachings).

Source of Sharia: The government and its religious establishment view the authentic Hadith as the second primary source of Islamic law after the Quran.

Immutability: Like the Quran, the authentic Hadith are considered immutable and divinely inspired, meaning they cannot be altered or disregarded by human authority. 

Theological Basis

The belief that the Hadith is a form of divine revelation stems from: 

Quranic Interpretation: Verses in the Quran itself command believers to obey the Prophet Muhammad, which, by extension, implies obeying his teachings and example as found in the Hadith.

Types of Revelation: Traditional Islamic scholarship distinguishes between two types of revelation:

Recited Revelation (Wahy Matlu): The Quran, which is considered the verbatim word of God.

Unrecited Revelation (Wahy Ghair Matlu): The Sunnah/Hadith, where the meaning is from God, but the expression (the Prophet’s own words and actions) is the Prophet’s. 

Therefore, in the Saudi legal and theological framework, the Hadith are not merely historical records or human commentary; they are essential, divinely guided sources for understanding and practicing Islam correctly. This contrasts with “Quranist” movements, which reject the Hadith as a source of divine law.”

Considering the Quran alone, what does the God of the Quran say to Saudi Arabia?

GoogleAI Mode: “When considering the Quran alone, the text provides general principles and moral guidance for believers, but it does not prescribe a specific, detailed system of government for any nation, including Saudi Arabia. Interpretations of the Quran regarding governance vary widely among different Muslim individuals and communities, ranging from those who see the Quran as the sole source of law to those who also incorporate additional sources like the Sunnah and Hadith. 

Specific points the Quran emphasizes that are relevant to governance and individual conduct include:

Justice and Equity: The Quran repeatedly stresses the importance of administering justice fairly and treating all people with equity, regardless of their background.

Consultation (Shura): The concept of shura (mutual consultation) is mentioned as a praiseworthy practice for decision-making (Quran 42:38), suggesting a model of governance that involves deliberation rather than absolute rule.

Completeness of the Message: The Quran describes itself as “explained in detail” (Quran 6:114) and “an explanation of all things” (Quran 16:89), leading some to argue that it alone is a sufficient source of guidance and law, without needing other sources like the Hadith.

No Compulsion in Religion: The verse “There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion” (Quran 2:256) highlights the individual’s freedom of conscience. However, as noted previously, the interpretation and application of this verse in a state legal system like Saudi Arabia’s is a subject of debate. 

Therefore, the “God of the Quran” does not address Saudi Arabia as a modern state directly. Instead, the Quran offers foundational ethical and moral principles that different interpretations apply to the practicalities of governance, leading to diverse views on whether the current Saudi model aligns with the divine text.”

To confirm, when the Qur’an alone is considered, the Hadith would not be accepted as law because the Quran is complete?

GoogleAI Mode: “Yes, based on a “Quran-alone” perspective (a belief system known as Quranism), the Hadith would not be accepted as a source of law because the Quran is considered a complete, fully detailed, and sufficient source of divine guidance. 

Adherents to this view cite several verses in the Quran to support their position: 

Completeness and Detail: Verses such as, “We have neglected nothing in the Book” (Quran 6:38), “Shall I seek other than Allah as a judge while it is He who has revealed to you the Book explained in detail?” (Quran 6:114), and “The word of your Lord has been accomplished truly and justly; there is none who can change His words” (Quran 6:115), are interpreted to mean that the Quran contains all necessary religious law and guidance.

Sole Source of Authority: The Quran itself is referred to as “the best Hadith” (Quran 39:23) and God questions in which hadith people will believe after His own revelations. Verses like “Follow what has been revealed to you from your Lord, and do not follow any allies besides Him” (Quran 7:3) are seen as explicit commands to follow the Quran exclusively.

Rejection of Other Narrations: Verses such as “Among the people is he who trades in baseless hadith to mislead others from the path of God” (Quran 31:6) are used to argue against the reliability and divine authority of Hadith collections. 

Therefore, the “Quran-alone” position holds that following the Hadith is an innovation and contradicts the Quran’s assertion of its own completeness and divine authority. This stance is in direct opposition to the mainstream Islamic position held by Saudi Arabia, which considers both the Quran and the authentic Sunnah (as preserved in Hadith) as primary, complementary sources of law.”

What would be different if Saudi Arabia accepted the Quran alone and International Human Rights Law?

GoogleAI Mode: “If Saudi Arabia were to accept the Quran alone as the sole source of law and adhere to International Human Rights Law, its political system, legal code, and social structure would undergo a dramatic transformation. This hypothetical scenario would essentially require a revolutionary shift away from the current Hanbali-based Sharia interpretation that also relies heavily on the Hadith. 

Key differences would include:

Abolition of Apostasy Laws: The current laws that make apostasy (leaving Islam) a capital crime are primarily derived from interpretations of the Hadith, not explicitly from the Quran alone. A Quran-alone interpretation, combined with international law, would likely lead to the abolition of these laws and full protection for an individual’s right to change their religion, consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Freedom of Public Worship: International human rights law guarantees the right to freedom of religion, including the right to publicly manifest one’s religion or belief. The current ban on building non-Muslim houses of worship and public religious practice would be lifted.

Abolition of the Absolute Monarchy: The current system is an absolute monarchy where the King holds supreme power under Sharia. The Quran alone does not mandate this specific political structure. Adhering to international law principles of self-determination and democracy would necessitate a fundamental change in governance, likely moving towards a constitutional or parliamentary system that incorporates democratic processes and the Quranic principle of shura (consultation) in a modern context.

Equality for Women: Many current restrictions on women in Saudi Arabia, such as elements of the guardianship system or certain personal status laws, are justified by interpretations of Hadith. A strict Quran-alone approach, combined with international law’s guarantee of gender equality, would necessitate full legal equality, including equal rights in matters of inheritance, marriage, and personal autonomy.

Overhaul of the Judicial System: The current judicial system relies on judges’ interpretations of Sharia which heavily incorporate Hadith. This would be replaced with a codified legal system based solely on the Quran and consistent with international legal standards, including modern due process rights.

End of Religious Police (CPVPV): The Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (religious police), whose mandate is to enforce public adherence to strict Islamic norms derived from the Hadith, would likely be dissolved, as their authority is not derived solely from a Quran-alone framework.”

Is it true the Quran precedes the Hadith by hundreds of years? Is it true there was a ban on Hadith after the death of Prophet Muhammad?

GoogleAI Mode: “Yes, it is historically accurate that the Quran precedes the compilation of the major Hadith collections by hundreds of years, and that there was an early, though not universally accepted, ban or discouragement on the writing of Hadith immediately after the Prophet Muhammad’s death. 

Chronology of the Quran and Hadith

Quran: The Quran was revealed incrementally to the Prophet Muhammad over a period of 23 years, from around 610 CE until his death in 632 CE. While parts were written down during his lifetime, the complete, standardized written version was compiled shortly after his death, primarily under the first Caliph, Abu Bakr, and finalized by the third Caliph, Uthman, around 650 CE. The process of collecting and verifying the Quran was a priority to ensure the preservation of the exact divine words.

Hadith: The major, authoritative collections of Hadith (the narrations of the Prophet’s sayings and actions) were compiled much later. The most respected Sunni collections, such as those by Al-Bukhari and Muslim, were compiled in written form during the 2nd and 3rd centuries of the Islamic calendar (roughly 800s to 900s CE), about 200 to 300 years after the Prophet’s death. 

Ban on Writing Hadith

It is historically attested that there was a period immediately following the Prophet Muhammad’s death where the writing of Hadith was discouraged or even banned by the early Caliphs. 

Reason for the Ban: The primary concern, voiced by figures like the second Caliph Umar, was the fear of mixing the Prophet’s words with the divine text of the Quran. The early Muslim community wanted to ensure the Quran remained the sole, pure source of revelation, a concern rooted in the need to prevent its corruption.

Implementation: Caliphs Abu Bakr and Umar are both reported to have forbidden the writing of Hadith and, in some accounts, even ordered the burning of collected notes.

Shift in Policy: The official ban persisted through the Rashidun and into the early Umayyad caliphates. It was eventually lifted by the Caliph Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz (ruled 717-720 CE), who ordered the formal collection of Hadith, fearing that the oral traditions would be lost as the early companions of the Prophet died off. 

This historical context is a key point of discussion and a central argument for those who advocate a “Quran-alone” interpretation of Islam, contrasting the rapid, systematic compilation of the Quran with the much later, more complex process of the Hadith collections.”

After accepting the Qur’an alone (no hair cover required) and International Human Rights Law, what would life be like for girls and women in Saudi Arabia?

GoogleAI Mode: “After accepting the Quran alone and International Human Rights Law, life for girls and women in Saudi Arabia would be fundamentally and positively transformed, moving them toward complete equality and autonomy.

This paradigm shift would entail:

Abolition of the Male Guardianship System: The guardianship system, which currently requires women to obtain the permission of a male relative for key decisions like marriage, travel abroad, or certain medical procedures, would be abolished. International human rights law demands full legal capacity for women.

No Mandatory Dress Code or Hair Cover: The strict, state-enforced requirement for women to wear the abaya (a full-length cloak) in public and cover their hair would end. The Quran alone does not mandate the hair covering, focusing instead on modesty (Quran 24:31), a principle that would become a personal choice of interpretation and practice for each woman.

Full Equality in Personal Status: Laws governing marriage, divorce, and inheritance would be reformed to ensure equality. International law would mandate equal rights in divorce proceedings, and a Quran-alone interpretation would address the traditional interpretation that gives women half the inheritance share of men.

Equal Access to the Public Sphere: Women would have full freedom to participate in all aspects of public life, including education, employment, and politics, without legal barriers or discrimination.

Abolition of Gender Segregation: The strict enforcement of gender segregation in public spaces, offices, and universities would cease, replaced by freedom of association and movement.

Protection from Discrimination and Violence: A robust legal framework in line with international standards would be established to protect women and girls from all forms of discrimination and violence, with legal recourse for violations of their rights.

In summary, women in Saudi Arabia would gain full legal and social autonomy, transforming their status from partial dependents to equal citizens with complete freedom of choice and opportunity, consistent with international human rights standards.”

What restrictions would be lifted for women in Saudi Arabia?

GoogleAI Mode: “If Saudi Arabia accepted the Quran alone and international human rights law, all remaining significant legal and social restrictions on women would be lifted.

The following key restrictions, which still persist to varying degrees despite recent reforms, would be entirely removed:

Abolition of the Male Guardianship System: While reforms have loosened guardianship rules for some activities (like travel for women over 21 and employment), the system has not been fully dismantled. A Quran-alone/international law framework would eliminate the requirement for a male guardian’s permission to:

Marry or divorce: Women currently still need guardian consent to marry, and men have unilateral rights to divorce, while women must petition a court on limited grounds.

Leave state institutions: Permission is still needed for a woman to leave prison or a domestic abuse shelter.

Child Custody and Guardianship: Although mothers typically get primary custody of children after a certain age, the father remains the legal guardian and has the power to make critical decisions.

Flee Abuse: Women fleeing abuse can still be reported to the police for “absence from home” and forcibly returned to their families.

Mandatory Dress Code and Segregation:

The formal “modesty” law, while no longer mandating a black abaya or head covering, would be interpreted as a personal choice rather than a state-enforced public decency standard.

Strict gender segregation in most public spaces, which limits women’s access to leadership and networking opportunities, would be abolished.

Legal Standing and Inheritance:

Discriminatory rules in the legal system, such as a woman’s court testimony being worth half a man’s or unequal inheritance shares, would be eliminated to ensure full legal equality.

Full Freedom of Movement: While women over 21 can now travel without permission, all remaining legal and informal barriers to movement for all women would be removed.”

What other social reforms might be enacted?

GoogleAI Mode: “Accepting a “Quran alone” legal system and International Human Rights Law would likely lead to a broad range of social reforms impacting civil liberties, the justice system, and minority rights. 

Key potential reforms would include:

Freedom of Expression and Dissent: Laws currently used to criminalize peaceful dissent, criticism of the government or religious officials, and blasphemy would be abolished. The Quran emphasizes justice, but does not prohibit free expression in the same way the current system’s laws do. Citizens would be free to criticize government policy and advocate for human rights without fear of arbitrary arrest or lengthy imprisonment.

Abolition of the Death Penalty for Non-Violent Crimes: Punishments like the death penalty for apostasy or certain drug-related offenses, which are derived from a traditional Sharia interpretation, would likely be abolished, reserving capital punishment (if at all) for the most serious crimes specified within a human rights framework.

Protection of Minority Rights: Discrimination against religious minorities, particularly the Shi’a population, would be eliminated. Non-Muslims would be allowed to practice their faiths publicly and build houses of worship, as guaranteed by international human rights law and the Quranic verse on no compulsion in religion.

Independent and Transparent Judiciary: The current judicial system, criticized for human rights abuses and lack of due process, would be reformed. This would involve a transition to a codified legal system with guarantees for fair public trials, judicial oversight, and protection against arbitrary detention, bringing the system in line with international standards.

Freedom of Assembly and Association: Restrictions on the ability of citizens to form independent civil society organizations, human rights groups, and political associations would be lifted. Peaceful protests and assemblies would be permitted.

Modernized Penal System: The use of corporal punishments (e.g., flogging) or other cruel and degrading treatments, which are inconsistent with international human rights standards, would be eliminated.

Transparency and Anti-Corruption: Principles of accountability and transparency would be introduced into governance to prevent the monopolization of resources and public funds by specific groups or the royal family, addressing calls for greater oversight of the national budget. 

These reforms represent a significant shift from the current system, transforming Saudi Arabia from an absolute monarchy ruled by a conservative interpretation of Sharia to a state governed by a constitutional framework that prioritizes human rights and a more liberal, individualistic interpretation of the Quran.”

How would the justice system function practically?

GoogleAI Mode: “A justice system that operates on the principles of the Quran alone and International Human Rights Law would function practically as a modernized, rights-based system with clear separation of powers, due process, and a codified legal framework.

Here is how the system would function in practice:

1. Codified Laws and a Constitution

Written Laws: The entire legal framework would be codified into a publicly accessible written constitution and detailed statutes (laws). The Quran would serve as the supreme legal reference point and guiding ethical document, but the daily laws would be modern legal codes, not solely based on a judge’s individual interpretation of religious texts.

Separation of Powers: The judiciary would be an independent branch of government, separate from the executive and legislative branches. Judges would be appointed based on legal qualifications and expertise in both constitutional/international law and Quranic ethics, not on religious piety alone.

Due Process Guarantees: Citizens would be guaranteed fundamental due process rights, including:

The right to a fair and public trial.

The right to legal representation, with state-appointed lawyers for the indigent.

The presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Protection from arbitrary arrest and detention.

The right to appeal convictions to higher courts.

2. Focus on Evidence and Procedural Justice

Evidence-Based Rulings: Rulings would rely heavily on material evidence, expert testimony, and modern forensics. Traditional Sharia rules of evidence that may assign different weights to male and female testimony or rely on subjective judicial discretion would be abolished.

Professional, Standardized Police Force: The police force would be secularized and professionally trained in human rights standards. Their role would be public safety and crime prevention, not the enforcement of private morality or religious dress codes.

3. Alignment with International Standards

Abolition of Inhumane Punishments: All forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishments, such as flogging, beheading, or stoning, would be abolished, as they violate international human rights norms. Punishments would focus on rehabilitation and deterrence.

Freedom of Conscience and Equality: The court system would uphold full equality for all citizens regardless of gender, religion, sect, or origin. Cases involving interfaith marriage, inheritance, and personal status would be adjudicated fairly and in a non-discriminatory manner.

Secular Civil Courts: While the constitution would be inspired by Quranic principles, specialized civil courts would handle specific areas of law (e.g., commercial, family, criminal) under the codified law, similar to many modern legal systems worldwide.

In practice, the justice system would resemble a rights-respecting, modern state’s legal system, with the added caveat that all human-made laws must adhere to the high-level moral and ethical principles outlined explicitly in the Quran.”

What would a Quran-alone legal system look like?

GoogleAI Mode: “A “Quran-alone” legal system would look significantly different from the current legal systems in most Muslim-majority countries, including Saudi Arabia. Proponents argue it would be a more progressive, ethical, and rights-based system focused solely on the explicit text of the Quran as the only source of law. 

Key features would include:

Codified and Modern Law: The legal system would likely be a codified civil law system, similar to many modern secular nations, with the Quran serving as the supreme constitutional authority. Laws would be systematically written down and applied uniformly, moving away from judicial reliance on varied, centuries-old clerical interpretations.

Focus on Universal Principles: The primary focus would be on the Quran’s general principles of justice, equity, compassion, and human dignity, rather than highly specific, often punitive rulings derived from the Hadith.

Abolition of Hudud Punishments (in most cases): Many of the harsh corporal punishments (hudud penalties, such as flogging for drinking alcohol or the death penalty for apostasy) are largely detailed and justified through the Hadith, not the Quran alone. A Quran-alone system would likely interpret Quranic references to punishment as minimums or contextualize them severely, possibly even abolishing some in favor of modern, proportionate penalties focused on rehabilitation.

Clear Due Process and Human Rights: By incorporating international human rights standards and the Quran’s emphasis on justice and avoiding oppression, the system would guarantee strong due process rights, the right to a fair trial, and protection from arbitrary arrest or detention.

Gender and Minority Equality: Laws would be structured to ensure complete gender equality, based on the Quranic principles of believers being “guardians of one another” (Quran 9:71) and emphasizing the inherent dignity of all people. Rights for non-Muslim minorities would be fully protected under law, consistent with the Quranic verse, “There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion” (Quran 2:256).

Democratic Governance: The system would likely adopt forms of modern, democratic governance that incorporate the Quranic principle of shura (consultation) into representative systems, replacing absolute monarchies or authoritarian regimes that are not mandated by the Quran itself. 

In essence, a Quran-alone legal system would look much more like a modern, rights-respecting constitutional republic or monarchy, where the Quran provides the overarching moral and ethical framework, and laws are developed through a transparent legislative process, consistent with universal principles of human rights. 

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”

What Quran verses challenge absolute monarchy?

GoogleAI Mode: “While the Quran does not explicitly outline a specific system of government (such as a democracy, republic, or monarchy), several verses challenge the principles inherent in an absolute monarchy by emphasizing the ultimate sovereignty of God, the importance of consultation, and the need for justice and accountability of all rulers. 

Key verses that challenge the idea of a single, unchecked human ruler include:

Quran 3:26 (Sovereignty belongs to God alone): “Say, [O Muhammad], ‘O Allah, Owner of Sovereignty, You give sovereignty to whom You will and You take sovereignty away from whom You will.’” This verse reinforces that all power and authority originate from God and are merely entrusted to human leaders on a temporary basis, not as an inherent right or permanent possession. This fundamentally opposes the “divine right of kings” concept often associated with absolute monarchy.

Quran 42:38 (The principle of Shura or mutual consultation): This verse praises believers “whose affair is [determined by] consultation among themselves”. This principle of shura implies that governance should involve mutual deliberation and consent within the community, rather than unilateral decision-making by a single monarch.

Quran 4:59 (Conditional Obedience to Authority): “O believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. Should you disagree on anything, then refer it to Allah and His Messenger…” This verse makes obedience to rulers conditional upon their adherence to the principles of Allah and His Messenger. It implies that if a ruler acts unjustly or against divine law, their authority is challenged, which is contrary to the unconditional obedience expected in an absolute monarchy.

Emphasis on Justice and Accountability: The Quran repeatedly stresses the importance of justice (‘adl) and fairness for all. Rulers are frequently warned about the consequences of oppression and injustice (Quran 7:56). The stories of tyrannical rulers like the Pharaoh, who claimed absolute power (Quran 28:38), are presented as cautionary tales of those who transgressed divine bounds and were ultimately held accountable by God. 

In summary, a Quran-alone perspective tends to support a system where power is a trust from God, exercised through consultation and bound by divine principles of justice and accountability, which challenges the notion of an absolute monarch with unchecked human power.”

What are other Islamic concepts of governance besides absolute monarchy?

GoogleAI Mode: “Besides absolute monarchy, a variety of other Islamic concepts and modern models of governance exist, often drawing on core principles like consultation (shura), justice (‘adl), and public interest (maslaha). 

These alternative systems include:

Caliphate: This historical model, particularly that of the early “Rightly Guided” Caliphs, is often idealized. In this system, the leader (Caliph or successor to the Prophet’s political authority) was ideally elected or selected by the community or its representatives, and their authority was checked by religious scholars (ulama) who were the guardians of Islamic law. The Caliph’s power was not absolute and was subject to the Sharia and the community’s consent.

Constitutional Monarchies: Some Muslim-majority countries, like Morocco and Jordan, operate as constitutional monarchies. These systems blend traditional monarchical rule with a modern constitution that defines and limits the monarch’s powers and includes elected parliamentary bodies.

Islamic Republics/Theocracies: Models like that in Iran establish a system where religious authorities (such as a Supreme Jurist or a council of experts) have ultimate power to ensure all legislation aligns with Islamic criteria.

Parliamentary Republics / Islamic Democracies: Countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Pakistan incorporate democratic principles (elections, representative bodies) within a framework that also respects and integrates Islamic values and laws. These systems often interpret the Quranic concept of shura as the basis for representative government.

Secular States: A number of Muslim-majority nations, such as Turkey, have adopted fully secular systems that separate religious and governmental affairs. 

These different models reflect the diversity of interpretations regarding how Islamic principles should be applied to modern governance, often contrasting with the absolute monarchical model found in Saudi Arabia.”

How much of Bukhari was thrown out before the current collection?

GoogleAI Mode: “Imam Bukhari is traditionally reported to have discarded more than 98% of the hadiths he collected, accepting only a small fraction into his authoritative collection. 

Here is a breakdown of the figures:

Total Hadiths Collected: Imam Bukhari reportedly collected or came across a massive number of narrations, estimated at around 600,000 hadiths, during his 16-year journey across the Islamic world.

Hadiths Included in the Final Collection: After meticulous examination using strict criteria, he selected a much smaller number for his work, Sahih al-Bukhari.

The collection contains approximately 7,275 to 7,563 hadiths including repetitions and different versions of the same narration.

Without considering repetitions, the number of unique hadiths is estimated to be between 2,230 and 4,000. 

This means that a vast majority of the narrations (around 99%) circulating at the time were “thrown out” or deemed inauthentic by Imam Bukhari’s stringent standards, which focused on the reliability of the narrators and the continuity of the chain of transmission (isnad). The relatively small number of accepted hadiths highlights the rigorous verification process he employed to ensure the highest level of authenticity.”