Speaking Truth to Power: A Timeless Islamic Duty

By Dr. Muhammad Abdul Jabbar: November 13, 2026

Abstract

The obligation to uphold justice and speak truth to political authority is a central ethical principle within the Islamic tradition. Drawing on Qur’anic teachings, prophetic traditions, and selected historical examples, this article examines manifestations of moral courage from the prophetic era and Karbala to classical Islamic scholarship, South Asian reform, anti-colonial resistance, and modern movements for political and civil rights. It adopts a historical and thematic approach, distinguishing the ethical principle of opposing wrongdoing from the diverse strategies and circumstances of those who challenged authority. The discussion also considers the relevance of this principle to contemporary human rights concerns. It argues that the defense of justice, human dignity, and moral accountability remains an enduring responsibility in Islamic thought, while the appropriate means of fulfilling that responsibility depend on knowledge, capacity, and context.

Introduction

One of the most noble principles in the Islamic tradition is the obligation to stand for truth and justice, especially when truth is unpopular and justice is costly. Islam does not merely encourage personal piety; it calls upon believers to confront wrongdoing and defend human dignity, regardless of who commits the injustice. The Qur’an declares:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا كُونُوا قَوَّامِينَ بِالْقِسْطِ شُهَدَاءَ لِلَّهِ وَلَوْ عَلَىٰ أَنْفُسِكُمْ أَوِ الْوَالِدَيْنِ وَالْأَقْرَبِينَ

“You who believe, uphold justice and bear witness to God, even if it is against yourselves, your parents, or your close relatives.”¹

Justice in Islam is not selective. It is not reserved for friends and denied to opponents. The Qur’an also instructs believers not to allow hatred of a people to lead them away from justice (5:8). The Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) elevated this responsibility to one of the highest forms of jihad, teaching that the best jihad is a word of justice before an oppressive ruler.²

This principle is closely related to the Islamic duty of commanding right and forbidding wrong (al-amr bi-l-maʿrūf wa-l-nahy ʿan al-munkar). The Qur’an establishes the duty, while Muslim scholars have developed diverse accounts of who should exercise it, under what circumstances, and by what means. The duty is not reducible to a single political strategy.³

Throughout history, prophets, scholars, reformers, and leaders have embodied this commitment in different ways. They shared the conviction that truth is sacred while worldly power is temporary. Their examples suggest that the legitimacy of authority cannot be separated from its moral responsibilities.

Scope and Method

This article offers a qualitative, historical, and thematic reading of selected figures and events. It draws on scriptural passages, historical narratives, biographical scholarship, and contemporary legal and human rights documentation. The examples are illustrative rather than exhaustive. The discussion distinguishes between the Islamic ethical obligation to uphold justice, the historical actions of particular individuals, and the subsequent interpretation of their legacies. It does not equate all forms of resistance or endorse every political or theological position adopted by the figures discussed.

The Prophets: The First Voices of Truth

The story of speaking truth to power begins with the prophets themselves. Prophet Nuh (Noah, peace be upon him) challenged the powerful elites of his society despite ridicule and rejection. Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham, peace be upon him) confronted idolatry and disputed the claims of a ruler who challenged his belief in Allah. The Qur’anic account of Ibrahim’s encounter with that ruler remains a powerful example of confronting false authority.⁴

Prophet Musa (Moses, peace be upon him) stood before Pharaoh, a ruler portrayed in the Qur’an as oppressive and arrogant. Armed with neither wealth nor armies, Musa challenged the ruler’s enslavement and persecution of the Israelites. His mission illustrates the Islamic understanding that truth derives its ultimate strength from Allah rather than worldly power. Significantly, the Qur’an also commands Musa and Harun to address Pharaoh gently, demonstrating that moral courage and wisdom are not opposed.⁵

Prophet Isa (Jesus, peace be upon him) likewise confronted rejection as he called his community to faith and obedience to Allah. The Qur’an presents his mission as one of spiritual renewal and divine guidance, in the face of opposition.⁶

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) himself spent approximately thirteen years in Makkah (Mecca), where his message challenged the religious and social authority of the Quraysh. The Qur’anic revelations condemned idolatry, exploitation, and neglect of the vulnerable. His mission placed moral responsibility above inherited status and challenged the mistreatment of the poor, orphans, enslaved persons, and other marginalized groups.⁷

Together, these prophetic examples establish a principle fundamental to Islamic ethics: power must submit to truth, rather than truth to power.

Karbala: A Symbol of Resistance

No discussion of moral courage in Islamic history can overlook the tragedy of Karbala. When Yazid ibn Muʿawiyah sought political legitimacy through the allegiance of Syedna Husayn ibn Ali (peace be upon them), the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), Husayn refused to give his allegiance. His refusal has been interpreted by generations of Muslims as a rejection of submission to unjust rule. The early historical record must be read within the complex circumstances of the Umayyad succession and the political appeals made to Husayn from Kufa.⁸

On 10 Muharram 61 AH (October 10, 680 CE), Syedna Husayn and many of his relatives and companions were killed by forces of the Umayyad authorities on the plains of Karbala. Although his party suffered a military defeat, the event acquired a profound religious and moral significance, and has inspired Muslims more broadly.⁹

Karbala teaches that success is not always measured by immediate worldly victory. The willingness to refuse injustice, even at great personal cost, can itself carry enduring moral significance. In this sense, Husayn’s sacrifice has become a powerful symbol of resistance to tyranny, conscience, and fidelity to principle.

Scholarly Independence and the Great Imams

The legacy of speaking truth to power continued through the great scholars of Islam. The experiences of the early jurists reveal the tension that could arise when political authority sought to enlist or constrain religious scholarship.

Imam Abu Hanifah (80–150 AH / 699–767 CE), the eponym of the Hanafi school of jurisprudence, is remembered for his resistance to political interference in religious authority. According to biographical accounts, he declined judicial appointment under the Abbasid caliph al-Mansur and was imprisoned. He died in Baghdad in 150 AH / 767 CE, although accounts differ concerning the precise circumstances of his death. His example has long been understood as one of scholarly independence.¹⁰

Imam Malik ibn Anas (93–179 AH / ca. 711–795 CE), the eponym of the Maliki school, held that oaths extracted under coercion were not binding. Historical accounts associate his subsequent flogging with the political implications of this legal opinion during Abbasid rule. He died in Madinah (Medina) in 179 AH / 795 CE. His experience demonstrates how a juristic position could acquire political significance even when expressed as a legal judgment.¹¹

Imam Musa al-Kazim (128–183 AH / 745–799 CE), the seventh imam in Twelver Shiʿi tradition, became renowned for his piety and learning. He spent periods in Abbasid custody and died in Baghdad in 183 AH / 799 CE. His experience illustrates the vulnerability of independent religious authority under a politically suspicious state; it should not be equated with an armed rebellion.¹²

Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (164–241 AH / 780–855 CE) offers a particularly striking example of intellectual independence. During the Abbasid mihnah (inquisition), initiated in 218 AH / 833 CE, the state sought to impose the doctrine that the Qur’an was created. Ahmad refused to affirm a doctrine he believed to be false and endured imprisonment and severe corporal punishment. The policy was reversed under al-Mutawakkil, with the inquisition commonly dated to 218–234 AH / 833–848 or 849 CE.¹³

These episodes illustrate a distinction between religious scholarship and political obedience. A scholar’s commitment to conscience and legal integrity may require resisting a ruler’s demands, even where obedience would offer personal security or advancement.

Scholars Who Challenged Kings and Empires

Shaykh Izz al-Din ibn Abd al-Salam (ca. 577–660 AH / 1181–1262 CE), known as the Sultan of the Scholars (Sulṭān al-ʿUlamāʾ), earned his reputation through his firmness in defending legal principles and public welfare. His judgments demonstrated that scholarly authority could be exercised independently of rulers and vested interests. He died in Cairo in 660 AH / 1262 CE.¹⁴

Ibn Taymiyyah (661–728 AH / 1263–1328 CE) lived through a turbulent period of Islamic history. His legal and theological positions repeatedly brought him into conflict with religious and political authorities, resulting in imprisonment on several occasions. These conflicts were not exclusively political; they involved substantive disagreements about doctrine, law, and religious practice. His experience nevertheless illustrates the personal costs of maintaining convictions in the face of institutional pressure.¹⁵

His student Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (691–751 AH / 1292–1350 CE) emphasized justice as an essential objective of legitimate governance. In his work on judicial procedure and governance, he explored the relationship between legal judgment, evidence, and the realization of justice. He died in Damascus in 751 AH / 1350 CE.¹⁶

The experiences and writings of these scholars suggest that moral responsibility requires more than private conviction. Where religious authority is employed to legitimize wrongdoing, scholarly independence becomes a means of holding power accountable.

Voices of Reform in the Indian Subcontinent

South Asia produced significant examples of religious and intellectual leadership. Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi (971–1034 AH / 1563 or 1564–1624 CE), known as Mujaddid Alf Thani, lived during the reigns of the Mughal emperors Akbar and Jahangir. Through scholarship, correspondence, and spiritual teaching, he articulated a program of Islamic renewal and offered criticism of aspects of Mughal religious policy. He was imprisoned in 1619 under Jahangir and released approximately a year later. The reasons for his imprisonment are interpreted differently in imperial and Naqshbandi accounts. He died in Sirhind in 1034 AH / 1624 CE.¹⁷

A century later, Shah Waliullah Dehlawi (1114–1176 AH / 1703–1762 CE) emerged as a major voice of reform during a period of political decline and social fragmentation. His extensive writings addressed religious education, moral renewal, social order, and the relationship between political power and religious authority. His analysis of the caliphate reflects a concern with the institutional conditions necessary to sustain religious norms and public welfare.¹⁸

Both thinkers demonstrate the importance of intellectual engagement in confronting the moral and political challenges of their times. Their approaches differed, but scholarship and reform were central to their understanding of religious responsibility.

Resistance to Colonialism and Foreign Domination

The modern era witnessed new forms of domination through colonial conquest and imperial expansion. Across the Muslim world, resistance took a variety of forms, including military struggle, religious organization, political mobilization, and intellectual reform.

North Africa and the Caucasus

In Algeria, Emir Abd al-Qadir (1808–1883) led organized resistance to the French conquest from 1832 until his surrender in 1847. He later became renowned for his statesmanship and protection of civilians, notably during the violence in Damascus in 1860. His life illustrates that resistance to domination need not preclude concern for the dignity and safety of others. He died in Damascus in 1883.¹⁹

In the Caucasus, Imam Shamil (ca. 1797–1871) became the leading political and religious figure of the resistance to Russian expansion after his election as imam in 1834. He organized resistance across parts of the northeastern Caucasus until his surrender at Gunib in 1859. He died in Madinah in 1871.²⁰

In Libya, Umar al-Mukhtar (ca. 1862–1931), remembered as the Lion of the Desert, became a leading figure in resistance to Italian colonial rule, especially during the 1920s and early 1930s. Captured in September 1931, he was executed at Soluch on September 16 of that year. His legacy remains closely associated with the struggle against colonial domination.²¹

South Asian Anti-Colonial Movements

In British India, Shaykh al-Hind Maulana Mahmud al-Hasan (1851–1920), a prominent religious scholar associated with Deoband, supported resistance to British rule. His efforts became linked to the Silk Letter Movement (Reshmi Rumal Tehrik), a project that sought to mobilize opposition to colonial authority during the First World War. Arrested in the Hijaz, he was subsequently detained in Malta before returning to India in 1920.²²

Maulana Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi (1797–1861) was associated with the resistance to British rule during the uprising of 1857. He was arrested, tried, and transported to the Andaman Islands, where he died in 1861. His prison writings provide a distinctive record of colonial punishment and the experiences of an Indian Muslim scholar in exile.²³

In Bengal, Haji Shariatullah (ca. 1781–1840) established the Faraizi Movement following his return from Arabia in the early nineteenth century. The movement emphasized the performance of religious obligations and also challenged oppressive practices affecting Muslim peasants. His son Dudu Miyan (Muhsinuddin Ahmad; ca. 1819–1862) expanded the movement’s organization and mobilization against the exactions of zamindars (landholders), particularly during the 1840s and 1850s.²⁴

Titu Mir (Syed Mir Nisar Ali; ca. 1782–1831) led a peasant resistance in Bengal against oppressive landholders and colonial authorities. He died during a British assault on his fortified position in November 1831. Together, these agrarian movements illustrate the intersection of religious reform, economic grievance, and resistance to colonial power.²⁵

Intellectual Reform in the Wider Muslim World

Across the wider Muslim world, Jamal al-Din al-Afghani (ca. 1838–1897), Muhammad Abduh (1849–1905), and Rashid Rida (1865–1935) addressed the challenges posed by intellectual stagnation, European domination, and political subordination. Although their approaches differed substantially, their writings and activities helped shape debates about reform, education, political authority, and the place of Islam in modern society.²⁶

These examples demonstrate that anti-colonial resistance cannot be understood solely as armed conflict. The struggle against domination also involved social organization, economic justice, education, and the assertion of intellectual independence.

Modern Voices of Conscience

In the twentieth century, the challenge of speaking truth to power remained as relevant as ever. Modern political movements raised new questions about the relationship between religious commitment, state authority, and individual conscience.

Abul Aʿla Maududi (1903–1979) argued that political authority must remain accountable to divine guidance and moral law. His political activism and criticism of state policies led to imprisonment, including in 1948–49 and 1953. His writings and movement became influential in debates about Islamic political authority and the modern state.²⁷

Ruhollah Khomeini (1902–1989) emerged as a leading critic of the Pahlavi monarchy in Iran. His opposition became prominent during the protests of 1963, and he was exiled in 1964. He returned to Iran on February 1, 1979, during the revolution that culminated in the collapse of the monarchy that month. He died in Tehran on June 3, 1989. His opposition to the monarchy and his subsequent theory and exercise of political authority remain subjects of extensive debate.²⁸

Muslims may differ in their assessment of these leaders and the movements they inspired. Their inclusion here illustrates the willingness to challenge established power; it does not imply endorsement of all their doctrines, institutions, or subsequent policies. The ethical principle of accountability must apply equally to movements that oppose power and to those that subsequently exercise it.

Malcolm X and Muhammad Ali in the United States

Malcolm X (1925–1965) exposed the systemic character of American racism and resisted pressure to moderate his critique for political comfort. He sought to reframe the struggle of African Americans as a matter of international human rights, rather than solely a domestic civil rights issue. In 1964, he pursued support from African leaders for bringing the treatment of African Americans to international attention. His advocacy of self-determination, economic independence, and self-defense challenged dominant narratives about American democracy and racial equality. His evolving religious and political commitments also demonstrate the importance of understanding moral activism within its historical context.²⁹

Muhammad Ali Clay (1942–2016) used his prominence as a world champion boxer to challenge racial inequality and the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War. In 1967, he refused induction into the armed forces on religious grounds, was convicted, sentenced to five years in prison, and deprived of his boxing title and the opportunity to compete for several years. He remained free while appealing the conviction. On June 28, 1971, the United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed his conviction in Clay v. United States, addressing the handling of his conscientious-objector claim. His stand demonstrates the willingness to risk fame, wealth, and freedom for conscience.³⁰

The cases of Malcolm X and Muhammad Ali extend the discussion beyond Muslim-majority societies. They show how religious conviction and moral courage can inform efforts to challenge racial injustice, public policy, and the exercise of state authority through public advocacy and conscientious objection.

Contemporary Responsibilities

The Prophet Muhammad taught that whoever witnesses wrongdoing should seek to change it by action if able, by speech if unable to act, and otherwise reject it in the heart, the weakest degree of faith.³¹

This teaching reminds Muslims of the obligation to oppose wrongdoing according to their ability, knowledge, wisdom, and legitimate authority. It is not an unrestricted authorization for private coercion. In contemporary society, lawful advocacy, public education, humanitarian assistance, and principled participation in civic life offer important avenues for fulfilling this responsibility.

The relevance of this principle is evident in contemporary human rights concerns. In relation to Palestine, the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion of July 19, 2024, concluded that Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory was unlawful and addressed obligations arising from its policies and practices. The opinion provides a legal framework for discussing occupation, displacement, and the rights of the Palestinian people.³²

In Kashmir, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights documented concerns about political and civil rights in Indian-administered areas in its 2019 update. More recent reporting on India has continued to raise human rights concerns, including restrictions and abuses affecting marginalized communities.³³

In the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China, also referred to as East Turkistan by some Uyghurs, the OHCHR’s 2022 assessment documented serious human rights violations affecting Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim minorities. The assessment identified concerns regarding arbitrary detention and restrictions on religious and cultural freedoms.³⁴

In Myanmar, the United Nations’ independent fact-finding mission documented grave abuses against the Rohingya, including forced displacement and severe persecution. Their situation has also been shaped by longstanding exclusion from citizenship and the resulting statelessness of many Rohingya people.³⁵

In India, human rights organizations have documented concerns involving discrimination, communal violence, and policies affecting Muslims and other minorities. USCIRF and Human Rights Watch’s reporting on events in 2025 provides a recent source for examining these concerns.³⁶

These cases differ in their histories, political contexts, and legal circumstances. They are included as illustrations of the continuing relevance of justice and human dignity, not as an assertion that every situation is identical. The Islamic ethical response is to seek reliable knowledge, advocate for justice through lawful and ethical means, assist those who suffer, and refuse to normalize injustice wherever it occurs.

Conclusion

The history of Islam is rich with examples of individuals who chose conscience over comfort and truth over fear. From the prophetic tradition to Karbala, from scholarly independence to reform and anti-colonial struggle, these examples illustrate the enduring importance of moral courage in Islamic ethics.

The figures discussed differed in their methods and circumstances. Some resisted through scholarship and preaching; others through reform, public advocacy, conscientious objection, or political and military struggle. Their experiences cannot be collapsed into a single historical model. Yet they illuminate a common ethical concern: the exercise of power must remain accountable to justice and the dignity of human beings.

True leadership is not measured merely by proximity to power, wealth, or influence. It is measured by the willingness to stand for what is right when doing so is difficult, to defend those who suffer injustice when doing so is unpopular, and to uphold truth even when the powerful would prefer silence. For Muslims, this enduring obligation must be pursued with wisdom, integrity, and a commitment to justice for all.

---

Notes

1. Qur’an 4:135. Translation by M. A. S. Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an: A New Translation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

2. Abū Dāwūd, Sunan Abī Dāwūd, Kitāb al-Malāḥim, no. 4344, Al-Tirmidhī, Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī, Kitāb al-Fitan, no. 2174.

3. Qur’an 3:104, 9:71; Michael Cook, Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong in Islamic Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 13–31, 469–502.

4. Qur’an 7:59–64; 11:25–49; 23:23–26; 2:258; 21:51–70.

5. Qur’an 20:43–48; 26:10–68; 28:3–6.

6. Qur’an 3:49–54; 5:110–17.

7. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Mecca (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1953); Qur’an 90:12–17; 93:9–10; 107:1–7.

8. Al-Ṭabarī, The History of al-Ṭabarī, vol. 19, The Caliphate of Yazīd b. Muʿāwiyah, A.D. 680–683/A.H. 60–64, trans. I. K. A. Howard (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990).

9. Meir Litvak, “Karbala,” Encyclopaedia Iranica 15, no. 5 (2010): 550–56, https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/karbala/.

10. Umar Faruq Abd-Allah, “Abū Ḥanīfa,” Encyclopaedia Iranica 1, no. 3 (1983): 295–301, https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/abu-hanifa-noman-b/.

11. Duncan Black MacDonald, “Malik ibn Anas,” in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911).

12. Mustafa Öz, “Mûsâ el-Kâzım,” TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/musa-el-kazim.

13. Walter Melville Patton, Ahmed ibn Hanbal and the Mihna: A Biography of the Imam Including an Account of the Mohammedan Inquisition Called the Mihna, 218–234 A.H. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1897).

14. Syed Mohd Jeffri Syed Jaafar et al., “Sumbangan Izz al-Din Ibn Abd Salam (m. 660H) dalam Perkembangan Sejarah dan Tamadun Islam,” Journal of Al-Tamaddun 19, no. 2 (2024), https://doi.org/10.22452/JAT.vol19no2.1.

15. Sherman A. Jackson, “Ibn Taymiyyah on Trial in Damascus,” Journal of Semitic Studies 39, no. 1 (1994): 41–85, https://doi.org/10.1093/jss/XXXIX.1.41; Jon Hoover, “Ibn Taymiyya,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2024 ed., https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2024/entries/ibn-taymiyya/.

16. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, Al-Ṭuruq al-Ḥukmiyyah fī al-Siyāsah al-Sharʿiyyah, ed. Muḥammad Jamīl Ghāzī (Cairo: Maṭbaʿat al-Madanī, 1977).

17. Yaron Friedman, “Aḥmad Serhendī (1),” Encyclopaedia Iranica 1, no. 6 (1984): 654–57, https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ahmad-serhendi-shaikh-outstanding-mughal-mystic-and-prolific-writer-on-sufi-themes/; Yohanan Friedmann, Shaykh Aḥmad Sirhindī: An Outline of His Thought and a Study of His Image in the Eyes of Posterity (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1971).

18. J. M. S. Baljon, Religion and Thought of Shāh Walī Allāh Dihlawī, 1703–1762 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1986); Muhammad Qasim Zaman, “Political Power, Religious Authority, and the Caliphate in Eighteenth-Century Indian Islamic Thought,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 30, no. 2 (2020): 313–40, https://doi.org/10.1017/S135618632000022X.

19. John W. Kiser, Commander of the Faithful: The Life and Times of Emir Abd el-Kader: A Story of True Jihad (Rhinebeck, NY: Monkfish Book Publishing, 2008).

20. Moshe Gammer, Muslim Resistance to the Tsar: Shamil and the Conquest of Chechnia and Daghestan (London: Frank Cass, 1994).

21. Ali Abdullatif Ahmida, The Making of Modern Libya: State Formation, Colonization, and Resistance, 2nd ed. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2009).

22. Jan-Peter Hartung, “The Praiseworthiness of Divine Beauty – The ‘Shaykh al-Hind’ Maḥmūd al-Ḥasan, Social Justice, and Deobandiyyat,” South Asian History and Culture 7, no. 4 (2016): 346–69, https://doi.org/10.1080/19472498.2016.1223719.

23. Jamal Malik, “Letters, Prison Sketches and Autobiographical Literature: The Case of Fadl-e Haqq Khairabadi in the Andaman Penal Colony,” Indian Economic & Social History Review 43, no. 1 (2006): 77–100, https://doi.org/10.1177/001946460504300104.

24. Muhammad Mohar Ali, History of the Muslims of Bengal, vol. 2, Bengal Muslims during the First Century of British Rule, 1757–1871 (Riyadh: Imam Muhammad ibn Saud Islamic University, 1985–88).

25. Ali, History of the Muslims of Bengal, vol. 2.

26. Albert Hourani, Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age, 1798–1939 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).

27. Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr, Mawdudi and the Making of Islamic Revivalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).

28. Ervand Abrahamian, A History of Modern Iran (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008); Ervand Abrahamian, Khomeinism: Essays on the Islamic Republic (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993).

29. Manning Marable, Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention (New York: Viking, 2011); Malcolm X, with Alex Haley, The Autobiography of Malcolm X (New York: Grove Press, 1965).

30. Jonathan Eig, Ali: A Life (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017); Clay v. United States, 403 U.S. 698 (1971).

31. Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Kitāb al-Īmān, no. 49a, https://sunnah.com/muslim:49a; Cook, Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong, 32–45.

32. International Court of Justice, Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem, advisory opinion, July 19, 2024, https://www.icj-cij.org/case/186.

33. United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Update of the Situation of Human Rights in Indian-Administered Kashmir and Pakistan-Administered Kashmir from May 2018 to April 2019 (July 8, 2019), https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Countries/IN/KashmirUpdateReport_8July2019.pdf; Human Rights Watch, “India,” in World Report 2026: Events of 2025 (2026), https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2026/country-chapters/india.

34. OHCHR, OHCHR Assessment of Human Rights Concerns in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, People’s Republic of China (August 31, 2022), https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/countries/2022-08-31/22-08-31-final-assesment.pdf.

35. United Nations Human Rights Council, Report of the Detailed Findings of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, UN Doc. A/HRC/39/CRP.2, September 17, 2018.

36. Human Rights Watch, “India”.

Bibliography