Is it permissible to arrest individuals renowned for corruption and drug trafficking without evidence of their crime?

It is permissible for the ruler to imprison accused individuals known for immorality, criminality, and corruption until their situation becomes clear. Accused individuals are divided into three categories: 1. The Innocent: Their punishment is impermissible by consensus. 2. The Unknown: They are imprisoned until their situation becomes clear, according to the general consensus of Islamic scholars. They cite the action of the Prophet (peace be upon him), who imprisoned someone on suspicion. 3. The Known for Immorality: Their imprisonment is more appropriate than that of the unknown.

Lawful imprisonment is the detention of a person and preventing them from acting, whether in a house or a mosque. There was no designated prison during the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and Abu Bakr; rather, it appeared during the era of Umar ibn al-Khattab.

The majority of jurists hold that the imprisonment of an accused person is permissible if the accusation is supported by strong circumstantial evidence, or if signs of suspicion appear, or if they are known for immorality. They consider it part of just governance. They have detailed the rulings concerning the imprisonment of the accused: If the person is not among those accused and there is no circumstantial evidence, it is not permissible to imprison or punish them. If their status is unknown, they are imprisoned until their situation becomes clear. If they are known for immorality, their imprisonment is permissible; in fact, it is more appropriate.

However, Qadi Shurayh, Abu Yusuf, and Imam al-Haramayn held that imprisonment based on suspicion is prohibited unless there is complete evidence.

Discretionary Punishment (Ta'zeer) based on Suspicion: Fixed punishments (Hudud) are not imposed based on suspicion. The Hanafis and Malikis hold that it is permissible to administer discretionary punishment to an accused person if strong circumstantial evidence indicates they committed a prohibited act, but the full legal evidence is not complete, or if their corruption is widely known. If the accused is known for righteousness and piety, it is not permissible to administer discretionary punishment to them. If their status is unknown, they are imprisoned until their situation becomes clear. If they are known for immorality, they are subject to discretionary punishment by beating or imprisonment.

Some scholars believe that an accused person known for their criminal record and corruption, and against whom strong circumstantial evidence exists, can be subjected to discretionary punishment by beating or imprisonment until they confess, even if their guilt is not definitively proven, especially in crimes that harm others, such as drug dealing.