The Reality of the “Law” of Iṭmām al-Ḥujjah (Completion of Proof)

Based on an analytical critique by Dr. Mushtaq Ahmad

❖ Overview of the Iṭmām al-Ḥujjah Theory​

Dr. Mushtaq Ahmad’s detailed analysis critiques the concept of “Law of Iṭmām al-Ḥujjah”, which holds a central place in the Farāhī school of thought—particularly in the teachings of Javed Ahmad Ghamidi. This theory asserts that once divine truth has been completely conveyed to a people through a Messenger (Rasūl), those who reject it deserve divine punishment and political subjugation.


However, multiple conceptual, textual, and historical objections challenge this notion, especially its status as a universal “law.”

❖ Key Objections and Critical Questions​

1. The Killing of Messengers​

Sūrah al-Mā’idah (5:70) mentions the killing of Messengers, but the Farāhī school interprets "Messenger" here as a non-technical, general prophet (nabī), not a Rasūl.


Question: If in Sūrah al-Nisā’ (4:157), ʿĪsā (عليه السلام) is termed a Rasūl, why is the same term interpreted differently in other contexts?
➡ This selective interpretation lacks consistency.

2. Can a Prophet Fail to Complete the Proof?​

The claim is that only a Rasūl, not a Nabī, can perform Iṭmām al-Ḥujjah.


Yet Sūrah al-Nisā’ (4:165) declares that all Messengers were sent to warn and give glad tidings, completing the proof upon people.


Question: What about prophets like Ayyūb, Yūnus, and Hārūn (عليهم السلام), who neither gained dominance nor destroyed their opponents?
➡ Did they fail in Iṭmām al-Ḥujjah?

3. Why Were Banī Isrā’īl Not Exterminated?​

Banī Isrā’īl committed major sins and even shirk, yet were not destroyed like other rejecting nations.


The response from the Farāhī school is that monotheism spared them from annihilation.


Question: Both the Qur’an and Bible confirm their indulgence in shirk. Why then this exception?


Also, their punishments (e.g. Babylonian exile, Roman invasions) were inflicted by non-Muslim forces, not by the Messenger and his companions.


➡ Does this align with the supposed “law”?

4. The Two Punishments to Banī Isrā’īl​

According to Islāhī, Banī Isrā’īl were punished twice:

• First by Nebuchadnezzar
• Second by the Romans

Question: Neither involved a Messenger, nor did his companions dominate.
➡ So how is this consistent with the “law”?

5. Where Was the Victory of ʿĪsā (عليه السلام)?​

Ghamidi claims that the followers of Jesus eventually gained dominance over the Jews, fulfilling the law.


Question: But this occurred centuries later, through Roman adoption of Christianity, not during his life.
➡ Can this be called political dominance by the Qur’anic standard?

6. Eternal Punishment for the Jews​

Sūrah al-Aʿrāf mentions a perpetual punishment for the Jews. However, no link to Iṭmām al-Ḥujjah is mentioned.


Question: If this punishment was due to Jesus’ rejection, why does it continue for future generations?

7. Delay in Punishing the Disbelievers of Quraysh​

Unlike past nations who were immediately destroyed, Quraysh were given over a decade after Hijrah before facing any judgment.


Question: Why such a delay? For example, Thamūd was destroyed immediately after killing the she-camel.


➡ This inconsistency weakens the idea of a fixed “law.”

8. Possibility of a Rasūl’s Death or Killing​

The Qur’an states:


"If Muhammad were to die or be killed…"
(Āl ʿImrān 3:144)


"Whether We show you what We have promised or cause you to die…"
(Yūnus 10:46)


Question: If a Messenger dies before his people are judged, how is the “law” fulfilled?

9. Was the Prophet’s Mission Limited to Arabia?​

Ghamidi argues that the Prophet ﷺ fulfilled his mission within the Arabian Peninsula, with dominance established fully during the Caliphate of Abū Bakr (رضي الله عنه).


Question: Does the “law” only apply to Arabia? What about other nations addressed indirectly?

10. How Was Iṭmām al-Ḥujjah Done on Rulers Like Caesar and Chosroes?​

If the “law” requires direct proof and rejection before judgment:


Question: How were non-Arab rulers (e.g., Caesar, Chosroes) subjected to this “law”?
➡ Does it necessitate a reconstruction of Islamic history to fit this theory?

❖ Final Analysis: Law or Theological Theory?​

Dr. Mushtaq concludes:

• The Iṭmām al-Ḥujjah framework is not a divinely fixed law, but rather a theological theory.
• Framing it as a law by the Farāhī school—especially by Ghamidi—requires reinterpretation of the Qur’an, ḥadīth, and sīrah.
• It relies heavily on assumptions and selective application of verses and historical events.

❖ Conclusion:​

✔ The "Law of Iṭmām al-Ḥujjah" lacks textual consistency,
✔ contradicts many historical realities,
✔ and requires extensive theological re-engineering to appear valid.


➡ It is not a universal legal principle, but a speculative theological proposition.