Greetings to all,

I would like to invite opinions about whether Shariah Law would be beneficial if introduced in Britain (or perhaps other non-Muslim countries). Since I live in Britain, that is the society I am most familiar with, so I shall be thinking of the question from a British perspective. Of course, I'm sure many people here on the forum will know much more about Shariah Law than I do, so I look forward to learning more about it.

I have already stated on another thread that I would not be happy with a Shariah Law system in this country. Here are the reasons I have given for this view:

1. Capital punishment. Either killing is wrong, or it isn't. To say that it is wrong for a member of the public to kill, but that it is permissible for the state to kill that person seems to me to be hypocritical.

2. Punishment for theft. I believe that cutting off someone's hand is barbaric. Simple as that.

3. Banning of all intoxicants. I believe that everyone should have the right to use any intoxicant at all, if that is their wish. Contrary to current British law, I believe that all drugs should be legalised forthwith.

These are the main reasons why I would oppose the introduction of Shariah law in Britain. While I think the current British legal system is far from perfect, I do not think Shariah law would be a valid solution.

I have one question:

What would be the legal status of music and other art forms under Shariah law? Would music be banned, as it was (is?) in Iran? How about artworks which are perceived to be contrary or insulting to Islam, such as Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses"?

I'm sure we could have a useful discussion on this topic, and I look forward (once again) to learning more about Islamic views in this regard.

Peace

Hello Callum,
Here is my response to your objections.
I think this objection is very weak. In a system of perfect justice there is equality and fairness. Killing in defense or justice is incomparable to murders and unjust killings. I can give several examples, and I'd like your input on each one.

A police officer arrives at the scene of a crime and sees a villian firing bullets into a screaming crowd. Can the officer kill him? Is he a hypocrite for doing so?

Someone rapes and then brutally murders your mother. Just imagine that for a moment and think seriously about your feelings then. Let's be honest, what punishment do you think he should recieve in order for justice to be served?

If you can picture that, picture warcriminals like Hitler who slaughtered millions of people - what should his punishment be? Is even death sufficient to deliver justice to the one who inflicted so much torture on innocent people?

I think from the above it becomes clear that not only is license to kill a necessity in the field of law enforcement, but it must also be part of the state's penal code in order to serve justice to the victims of crimes and to preserve order in the state through deterence. If someone commits first degree murder, then in a truly just society they should be executed. The only reason why Christians don't recieve criticism on these points is because they defer all punishments to the next life. But eternal suffering in Hellfire is much more severe than execution in this life. Why is it that there is so little protests against the belief in such a drastic punishment in the next life in comparison to the protests raised for a just punishment in this life.

Also note the tremendous evidence which shows how the death penalty significantly reduces crime:

(2003) Emory University Economics Department Chairman Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Emory Professors Paul Rubin and Joanna Shepherd state that "our results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect. An increase in any of the probabilities -- arrest, sentencing or execution -- tends to reduce the crime rate. In particular, each execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders -- with a margin of error of plus or minus 10." (1) Their data base used nationwide data from 3,054 US counties from 1977-1996.

(2003) University of Colorado (Denver) Economics Department Chairman Naci Mocan and Graduate Assistant R. Kaj Gottings found "a statistically significant relationship between executions, pardons and homicide. Specifically each additional execution reduces homicides by 5 to 6, and three additional pardons (commutations) generate 1 to 1.5 additional murders." Their "data set contains detailed information on the entire 6,143 death sentences between 1977 and 1997. (2)

(2001) University of Houston Professors Dale Cloninger and Roberto Marchesini, found that death penalty moratoriums contribute to more homicides. They found: "The (Texas) execution hiatus (in 1996), therefore, appears to have spared few, if any, condemned prisoners while the citizens of Texas experienced a net 90 (to as many as 150) additional innocent lives lost to homicide. Politicians contemplating moratoriums may wish to consider the possibility that a seemingly innocuous moratorium on executions could very well come at a heavy cost." (3)

(2001) SUNY (Buffalo) Professor Liu finds that legalizing the death penalty not only adds capital punishment as a deterrent but also increases the marginal productivity of other deterrence measures in reducing murder rates. "Abolishing the death penalty not only gets rid of a valuable deterrent, it also decreases the deterrent effect of other punishments." "The deterrent effects of the certainty and severity of punishments on murder are greater in retentionist (death penalty) states than in abolition (non death penalty) states." (4)

(2003) Clemson U. Professor Shepherd found that each execution results, on average, in five fewer murders. Longer waits on death row reduce the deterrent effect. Therefore, recent legislation to shorten the time prior to execution should increase deterrence and thus save more innocent lives. Moratoriums and other delays should put more innocents at risk. In addition, capital punishment deters all kinds of murders, including crimes of passion and murders by intimates. Murders of both blacks and whites decrease after executions. (5)

(2003) FCC economist Dr. Paul Zimmerman finds: "Specifically, it is estimated that each state execution deters somewhere between 3 and 25 murders per year (14 being the average). Assuming that the value of human life is approximately $5 million {i.e. the average of the range estimates provided by Viscussi (1993)}, our estimates imply that society avoids losing approximately $70 million per year on average at the current rate of execution all else equal." The study used state level data from 1978 to 1997 for all 50 states (excluding Washington D.C.). (6)

(2003) Emory University Economics Department Chairman Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Clemson U. Professor Shepherd found that "The results are boldly clear: executions deter murders and murder rates increase substantially during moratoriums. The results are consistent across before-and-after comparisons and regressions regardless of the data's aggregation level, the time period, or the specific variable to measure executions." (7)

A couple of points to note on the punishment of amputation for theft:
a-the punishment will not be applied if there is any doubt as to the guilt of the suspect
b-the punishment will not be applied if the value of the stolen goods is below something of great value -> determined by 'urf (customs of society)
c-the punishment will not be applied if the thief stole out of need/poverty
d-the punishment will not be applied if the goods weren't in proper storage (al-hirz) -> also determined by 'urf (customs of society)
e-the punishment will not be applied if the thief returns the goods and seeks forgiveness of the victim of the theft, before the case enters the judicial system
f-the punishment will not be applied if the culprit is not a sane adult and the crime was not committed under duress
g-the punishment will not be applied if the goods were not legally owned
h-the punishment will not be applied if it is a child stealing from parents or parents stealing from children or one spuse from another according to the opinion of all jurists except Imaam Malik.
i-the punishment will not be applied if the person is permitted to enter the place from where he stole because in such a case there is no proper custody (al-hirz)
j-according to Imaam Abu Hanifa the punishment is not applied to the non-muslim living in the muslim state, however Imaam Shafi', Imaam Maalik and Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal have said that it is.

If the theft passes these restrictions, then it recieves the hadd punishment of hand amputation. Any theft that does not meet these restrictions recieves ta'azir (discretionary punishment). In such cases the Islamic society would most likely follow case/common law by rule of precedent where like cases are treated alike.

Coming to the scenario where amputation is applied in theft, it is interesting to note the effect this has on society. I'd like to quote some parts of a discussion at a conference of the Saudi scholars:

At this point Dr. Dawalbi made a comment:

"I have been in this country for seven years", he said, "and I never saw of heard of, any amputation of the hand for stealing. This is because the crime is extremely rare. So, all that remains of that punishment is its harshness, which has made it possible for those who are tempted to steal, to keep their hands whole. Formerly, when these regions were ruled by the french-inspired Penal Code, under the Ottoman Empire, pilgrims travelling between the two Holy Cities - Mecca and Medina, could not feel secure for their purse or their life, unless they had a strong escort.
But when this country became the Saudi Kingdom, the Qur'anic Law was enforced, crime immediately disappeared. A traveller, then, could journey, not only between the Holy Cities, but even from Al-Dahran on the Gulf to Jeddah on the Red Sea, and traverse a distance of more than one thousand and five hundred kilometres across the desert all alone in his private car, without harbouring any fear or worry about his life or property, be it worth millions of dollars, and he be a complete foreigner."

The Saudi Delegation resumed:

"In this manner, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where Islamic law is enforced, state money is transferred from one town to another, from one bank to another, in an ordinary car, without any escort or protection, but the car driver. Tell me, Gentlemen: in any of your Western States, would you be ready to transfer money from one bank to another, in any of your capitals without the protection of a strong police force and the necessary number of armoured cars?
...Only here, Gentlemen, in this country where Islamic Law is enforced, the American Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. William Rogers, during his visit last year, could, he and his suit, dispense with the armoured cars, which had been carried in by special planes, and which accompanied them in their tour of more than ten countries. Only here, Gentlemen, did the Government of the Kingdom not allow its visitors to go around in these cars. Eventually, Mr. Rogers spontaneously declined the guard of honour usually placed by the Government at the disposal of their foreign guests; he walked through the soulks by himself, and confessed that, in this Kingdom, and in this Kingdom alone, one had such a feeling of security that one had no more need of a gurad.
...Stealing is almost unknown in our Kingdom, when people, in the great Capitals of Western countries under secular regimes, have no more security for their luves of their possessions.

(Doi, Shari'ah: The Islamic Law, Ta Ha Publishers 1984, pp. 260-261)

Personally, I know many people who have lived for ten or twenty years in Saudi Arabia and they have testified that they have never come across such a case of amputation for theft. When you implement such a balanced code, theft becomes un heard of.

Callum, I want you to look at this UN survey of burglaries between 1998-2000. Tell me who is at the bottom of the list? Who is at the top?

1. United States 2,099,700 burglaries (1999)
2. United Kingdom 836,027 burglaries (2000)
.
.
.
54. Saudi Arabia 11 (2000)!!!!

Which law is more successful?


These are concrete statistics here, Callum. There is no doubt when the UN conducts a survey and the country implementing Islamic law has the fewest burglaries, it demonstrates which is the most successful law is this regard.

There really is not much that I need to say here since I think that banning of intoxicants are obviously good, and your views are not even reflective of the current western laws, anyway. In the west they tried alcohol prohibition and other laws on intoxicants but because they didn't have the internal aspect in their system, it naturally failed. Contrast that to the time of the Prophet Muhammad saws, when he commanded the arabs who were the biggest drinkers of alcohol to abandon this practice, his followers obeyed immediately and the streets were flowing with alcohol.

I have many non-muslim colleagues, including atheists, who do not drink at all and would approve of a ban because they know of its harmful effects both on the body as well as on society. It is what devastates families and ruins the lives of innocent children. I think need for prohibition of such a vice is so self-evident that I don't really need to argue this point.

As for music, you are aware of the difference of opinion. There may be some forms allowed, other forms would not be allowed. Of course this refers to what is in the public. No one can do anything if someone downloads music and listens to it in their home. But an Islamic state would definitely promote an atmosphere clean of the influences of music, where society is bonded together in serving humanity rather than their personal desires.

As for artwork, then there are many forms that are encouraged withhin Islam, and the artwork found in Mosques is something that has fascinated artists from around the world for centuries.

How is the vicious slander of Islam and blasphemy equal to artwork?!

Peace.

Alhamdulillah, great posts brother Hashim and brother Ansar. may Allah increase all of us in knowledge so we can insh'Allah benefit others and clear the common misconceptions about our great deen.
btw, have u guys seen dr. zakir naik's lecture on this subject, if not u gotta check it out

Greetings to everyone,
I'm sorry I've been away for a while; I've been very busy with work and therefore unable to contribute as much as I would like.

Ansar, your defence of the Shariah law system is very strong and clear - I think the reasons for our disagreement stem from very different world-views. I'll try and explain what I mean by looking at the points you make.
I admit I was being glib. As it stands, the objection I gave needs several qualifications. Let's look at your examples:

In my view, if killing one person in such a situation can prevent the killing of many others, and if simply wounding or restraining the villain is not sufficient to stop him, then that killing is permissible as a last resort. Police officers killing suspects in the field of duty is clearly different to legally administered killing, which is where my main objection lies.

I think murderers and rapists should be locked up for the rest of their lives, with as much solitary confinement as is possible. That is the punishment I would want someone to face if they committed the crime you mentioned. I think death is quite an easy escape for a criminal, in some ways. It's inhumane to kill someone as a punishment (even if they are a horrendous criminal), but with death their suffering is over very quickly.

With questions like this, I don't think it is ever possible to bring justice to the victims. After someone like Hitler has committed their atrocities, I don't see what good killing them would do.

There's little protest from me on this point, since I see no reason to believe there is an afterlife. Britain is nominally a Christian country, but as you know, many people say they are Christians but do not actually know very much about their faith at all. Belief in the afterlife is in decline, but strangely there are many people who only believe in heaven, and not hell. I think the fact that many people, even many of those who call themselves Christians, do not believe in the afterlife in the same corporeal, physical way you do perhaps explains the anomaly you perceive here.

I've no doubt that the Shariah punishment for theft acts as an extremely powerful deterrent, I just think there have to be more humane ways of dealing with people. If you make a law saying everyone who uses chewing gum will be executed, then no-one will eat chewing gum. The punishment has to fit the crime - and I could not respect a system of law that entitled itself to mutilate people, no matter what they have done. Mutilation of another person is clearly a very unethical act, so even though you say it actually doesn't occur very often in Saudi Arabia, the point is it should not even be a legal option.

Yes, my views don't reflect the current laws in Britain, but they do reflect the opinion of a huge proportion of the British public. The 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act is famously Britain's most unpopular law, the most regularly broken law, and the law that is least enforced by the Police.

Yes, the prohibition of alcohol was a massive failure, and actually increased the consumption of alcohol, and also increased the danger involved because impurities were allowed to creep into the strong homemade brews that people resorted to. This is analogous to the current prohibition on drugs, which keeps the supply of drugs in the hands of criminals, many of whom are not averse to cutting rat-poison and other dangerous substances in with the drug to boost their profits. In an ideal world, if drugs were supplied by medical professionals working to fixed standards of dosage and quality, drug taking would be safer, and drug user numbers would decrease. (I should point out that by saying "drugs" here, I'm making a generalisation. There are many different types of drugs, as everybody knows, from aspirin to crack cocaine; I'm simply going over the basics of my position.)

Alcoholic people can ruin families, but the vast majority of people who drink alcohol do not become alcoholics. To ban all users because of the susceptibilities of a few seems unjust to me. Plus in Britain, alcohol is part of the nation's tradition. There are clearly good and bad aspects of this, and there are good and bad ways of dealing with drunken behaviour, but I don't see the need for an outright ban.

With regards to your points about music and artworks, a fundamental concept for Western artists is complete freedom of expression. This is the only way that art can progress and actually come to life. In states where the content of artworks is monitored and censored by the state, art as such can no longer exist. What remains is art as propaganda, which is very different from art indeed. This does not mean that Islamic art is not beautiful and intricate, or that it lacks value, but that its main function is to impress the Islamic tradition on the mind of the viewer. Great works of art in the Western world have been made under the direct control of powerful people, but after a while such an approach tends to make the art world stagnate and become repetitive.

Artworks in the Western world have frequently been both vicious or blasphemous. Satire has relied on both of these things, and they have produced some of the great works of Western literature (for example, the works of Juvenal, Martial, Jonathan Swift, Ezra Pound, William Burroughs). Whether somebody is offended or not has nothing to do with the quality of the artwork. Everyone has the right not to like a painting, book or piece of music, but that doesn't mean the artist should be restricted from producing such works.

It's clear we're not going to agree on this, I think because we have very different views about many things in the world. Thank you for giving your justifications for your views; I have now given mine.

Peace.

I'm inclined to agree with you. The secularist judges all legal systems on the premise that all religions are equal. To say that all conflicting religions are equal is to say that they are false, hence the secularist begins with this presumption. But from a Muslim's view, when Islam is the truth, then it is obvious that the system needs only be justifiable from its own standards.

I also forgot to mention that with murder, there is the option that the family of the victim can accept blood money, as well.

Good, we agree.

I see a contradiction above. Is killing inhumane or merciful? Is it pacifist to execute because we spare the criminal suffering?

With the issue of justice, since God is the Just, His divinely ordained system must be a system based on justice. It is simply NOT to fair to allow the death of one person but not execute the killer. In a system of equality, the killer must be executed. If that ends up being too light, then God will ultimately make them suffer equal to the suffering they inflicted on others, and if it ends up being too harsh, then God will expiate other sins by that punishment, that they would have been punished for.

First of all, you're comparing a major and universally recognized criminal act which dammages society, to something that is absolutely insignificant. Thus, its deterrence does not have a positive outcome while the deterrence of crime does.

Nevertheless, if God prohibited chewing gum and instituted execution as the punishment for it, then I would accept it regardless because it was a command ordained by God and this life is a test too carry out His commands. His commands don't have to be beneficial or appealing to us, that's just an added bonus from God's mercy.

And as to whether a crime fits its punishment, all of these crimes are disobedience to one's Creator and transgressions against one's fellow creation. It is for Our Creator to decide whether the crime matches or not. I don't have the arrogance to assume that if something doesn't seem appealing to me, then it must be wrong.

Now, previously you stated that an officer should be allowed to kill to prevent more killings, which is in-line with the Shariah principle of "the lesser of the two evils" when faced with a dilemma. Now, the choice is yours:

a) accept over 2 million burglaries a year and jeapordize the security of society and its productivity (btw, crime is also on the rise so we may be having even worse statistics in the future)

b) offer an extremely severe punishment as a deterrent and reduce the crime 80 000x, adding to the security of society.

According to your own principle of choosing the lesser evil, we should impose the stricter punishment.

First of all, mutilation is clearly prohibited in Islam. If you consider this mutilation, then mutilation is also the amputation of a patient's hand by a doctor to prevent a lethal disease from spreading. Just as the doctor does not what the lethal disease to spread and must consequently amputate his patients's hands for the greater good, similarly the jurist does not want the disease of crime to spread and amputate's the criminal's hand for the greater good.

Why is one option acceptable, but not the other? Why do you tolerate the "mutilation" that is imposed by doctors daily on thousands of people, yet he condemn the "mutilation" of ten or so individuals for a much greater purpose?

If we really want to get into the harms of drugs and alcoholism, we can continue that in a different thread.

Um...no, there is no complete freedom of expression anywhere as we have no right to infringe the rights of others with our claim to freedom of expression. For example, child pornography, inciting hatred or terrorism, slander/libel, discrimination/harassment - civilized people do not tolerate such crimes. Sure, everyone can keep their own views to themselves, but human beings do not accept attacks on others. We don't infringe rights to preserve freedoms.

Why?


I just wanted to mention that my intention was never to convince you that Shar'iah is the best code, since I don't think its possible for someone who doesn't believe in God (the foundation of Shari'ah) to accept God's laws. My intention was only to help you understand the perspectives of the other side and to understand your views as well. I hope we've accomplished that through this discussion.

Warm regards

My personal support for a non capital punishment state, which is a criteria of membership to the EU is as follows.

I am against the killing of innocent people for crimes that they did not commit. No one system of law Shariar based or otherwise can protect it's citizens 100% from a miscarriage of justice. Thus, to accept capital punishment is to support the killing of innocent people. Thus, retribution through the killing of a guilty many comes at the cost of the killing the innocent few.

This is simply a price not worth paying.............

Root

Hi root,
If you noticed, one of the conditions for the hadd (those prescribed by Allah in the Shari'ah) punishment to be applied is that their must be no doubt that someone has committed the crime, i.e. no other possibilities. As for any excessive or unjust suffering one endures, it either contributes to more reward for them, or it expitates some of their sins, for which they would have been punished.

peace.

EDIT



I'm going to add some of my other explanations here as well, on various Islamic punishments.

Apostasy:
http://www.islamicboard.com/20595-post1.html (Islam and Apostasy)

Fornication/Adultery/Rape:
http://www.islamicboard.com/130001-post19.html (What is the ruling on the crime of rape in Islam?)
http://www.islamicboard.com/130000-post18.html (What is the ruling on the crime of rape in Islam?)

Salam again Brother Ansar and thanks for the link that led me to this really interesting thread. Here I have discovered too much that can be discuessed with U.

Its good to see U giving ur reasons in support of capital punishment and amputation. Plz permit me to share my views with U on them.

Brother U are forgetting that ALLAH knows very well that to whom he is giving his commands. Offcourse at the time of revealaion it was the Holy Prophet, but ALLAH knew very well that how the coming generations,who are going to implement his commands, will be able to do justice. A human is made to commit mistakes, no one can be like the holy prophet, he wasnt made like ordinary human being by ALLAH himself. To expect from the judge and witnesses that the justice done will be 100%? No way!!! than I have serious doubts. The laws of failed democracies of the world are made upon a principal that even if 10 culprits get away...but one innocent must not be punished. Coz that will be the greatest injustice in guise of justice.

Let me tell U about an incident which hit the national headlines in India recently. One Indian man who was working at a petrol station in Saudi Arabia had a spat with someone on a trivial issue. That Arab was having some screw driver in his hands which accidently pricked his eye and the eyesight was lost consequently afterwards. The shariyah court ruled that eye of the accused should be popped out. The company which employed the accused offered some money to victim which he initially refused but after the Indian government intervened than the victim pardoned the accused just a week back. Thanks GOD.......so this is shariyah justice.....and saying that it is prescribed by ALLAH seems blasphamous to me at least. Had the poor accused lost his eye than would U have called a justice? From the all merciful ALLAH? For ALLAH sake plz think again.

Brother I have read all that Dr.Dawalbi had to say, but how to testify it? Saudi society is one of the most secret kind of society. U can know about them as much as they want to let U know. In lack of freedome of press which Islam doesnt allows, what option U have to confirm the sincerety of what they say? And even if all that he says is true than how we know that what price had been paid to ensure no theft. And is that price worth paying?

Brother can ALLAH give this kind of laws to the ppls who are sinner by nature given from ALLAH himself? Dont he knows that how his laws will be misused against his innocent creations? I know Ur answer and that U must be having some justification with U too, but do u have a gaurantee that no innocent will be punished or killed by Islamic State?

There is more to come but next time Inshallah.

Thanks

Hello justahumane,
Brother, remember when I talked about Ta'azir punishments vs. Hudood punishments? It's going to come up again here.

The hudood punishments, which are being discussed in this thread are to be delivered ONLY when there is certainty of the offense, not simply on the basis of circumstantial evidence. In other cases, when the guilt is established, a Ta'azir punishment is given.
First, the punishments cannot be given when there is doubt, as mentioned above. Second, western societies are secular and consequently do not believe in an afterlife. God will compensate all human beings for anything they suffered unfairly in this life. We also notice a double standard in the same soceties you speak of when it comes to warfare and they accept 'collateral damage'.

Thanks for the practical example, which we can now discuss. First of all, we are discussing Shari'ah law not Saudi law, and there is a difference between the two.

Secondly, the ruling you have cited for me is not correct, and I will demonstrate that by quoting from a renowned muslim scholar, who also is Saudi. Abu Bakr Jabir Al-Jaza'iry, a lecturer in the noble Prophetic Mosque explains when retaliation is taken in such a case.

The Criminal Offense that Harms the Limbs

Its Definition
The criminal assault that harms the limbs is when a person transgresses against another and gouges his eye out or breaks his leg or cuts off his hand, for example.

Its Ruling
If the attacker did this act intentionally... then he (the attacker) is retaliated against on behalf of the victim by having whatever part he cuts off, cut off from himself and he is wounded with the same way that wounded him. This is due to the statement of Allah the Almighty:

and the wounds equal for equal [5:45]

The exception to this is if the victim accepts a payment of blood money or he pardons the agressor. (Al-Jaza'iry, Minhaj Al-Muslim, p. 487, bold emphasis added)

It becomes clear that you have either not recalled the ruling correctly, or the ruling was incorrect since, for one thing, the action was unintentional as you described it. Al-Jaza'iry also mentions that retaliation of this form does not occur if it is feared that injustice might occur in taking retaliation, or if like retaliation is simply not possible often due to the risk of death involved.

Have you lived in Saudi? I quoted UN statistics earlier in this thread.

The hadith I quoted earlier in the thread about doubt. Do you have a guarantee that no innocent will be punished or killed in a western society?

Regards

Salam brother Ansar,

I had posted a brief reply two days back but I dont know where it has gone, have u deleted it our it couldnt make it to the thread? Let me start again.

Brother whether there is some certanity of the offence or not is to be decided by a human being only, and there is evey possibility that injustice may be done. To the extent, the injustice, which can only be compensated in the life hereafter, both for victim and his family.

Brother the guy was punished according to shariyah laws, and we are talking about shariyah laws offcource which are being implemented in Saudi Arabia.

Brother I havent cited any ruling here. I have just told U that a man was punished in this bizzare way by shariyah court. Secondly we are discussing here whether or not shariyah laws are good for society. Whatever the renowned scholer of Saudi Arabia said about the ruling doesnt makes a difference and it wouldnt be able to bring back the innocent eye had it been gouged out by the state.

I must say with respect to all the scholers of Islam that its not all about law books. Its not all about laws too, Here we must keep in mind that whether the humans as we know are ready to implement those shariyah laws in a justified manners or not? Can anyone deny that GOD knows his creations better than Us. Is it possible that he can prescribe those laws like amputation, when He Himself knows very well that how the custodians of laws are supposed to be, ie errant, ignorant, and sinfull. Dont he knows that how his laws will wreak havoc on his innocent creations if not implemented justly?

No brother, I have never been to the Saudi. But have heard a lot about them, both negative and positive. I m not contesting about the UN statistics u quoted too. Just asking a question how to confirm the quote. After all U too must not be ready to accept blindly all what UN says.

Bother I must say that the holy prophet was man of great wisdome. He knew that these laws have all the chances to be misused. So he gave some guidelines for implementations to his immidiate successors. But what he failed to judge is perhaps the nature of coming generations. And gradual elemination of shariyah laws gives us a hint that something was fishy about implementation of those laws, in another words we can say that those laws might have been proven to be failure. And GOD's laws cant fail at any cost..............this is my belief, if U think otherwise than U are free to have ur own opinion.

Brother this is a question which can remove all the doubts. No I dont have any gaurantee that man made laws are perfect and no innocent will be punished or killed by their implememtation. Still I have gaurantee that man made laws, specially in the west are made with such precision that it minimize the risk of being misused against a innocent. thus if we compare them with shariyah laws than we can very well understand that under western laws there is little possibility of VICTIMIZATION of an innocent while its quiet easy to victimize anyone under shariyah laws.

I have one more example to cite regarding shariyah laws. Some of Pakistan laws are based on shariyah. Like if a murderer is punished by courts than only family of the victim can pardon him/her. There was a very famous incident in Pakistan last year.One girl married against the wishes of her parents, her parents were very angry with her and to the extent that they hired a contract killer who murdered the poor girl in broad daylight and that too in the chamber of her advocate. The murderer was caught but was later pardoned by the parents of the girl. Need I say more?

Thanks.