Standard of justice. Allah and Bible God.

[Great I am not]

In another thread, the issue came up about a youth’s who had a hand cut off for stealing.
There may not have been any truth to this but it did start me thinking of God and His standards of justice.

Did God set a standard with, an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth etc.?

In fact, in the story of cane and Abel we see God even allowing mercy for murder. Showing that even an eye for an eye may be too much punishment.

What does Allah say and how does it compare to what Muslim standards are today?

Regards
DL

[alcurad]

an eye for an eye is the standard in matters where this is possible-acceptable?-, mercy and forgiveness are also part of it too, since we are instructed to forgive as well.

[Great I am not]

an eye for an eye is the standard in matters where this is possible-acceptable?-, mercy and forgiveness are also part of it too, since we are instructed to forgive as well.

Thanks for this.

Does that mean that the ideas or laws of cutting off limbs no longer exist?

Regards
DL

[aamirsaab]

Thanks for this.

Does that mean that the ideas or laws of cutting off limbs no longer exist?

Regards
DL

Not really. I mean, cutting off limbs punishment can still apply (though the requisites are huge, deliberately so) but it is not and never has been the only punishments; prison sentences, compensation etc can be used also.

It really depends on the case though.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Great I am not]

Not really. I mean, cutting off limbs punishment can still apply (though the requisites are huge, deliberately so) but it is not and never has been the only punishments; prison sentences, compensation etc can be used also.

It really depends on the case though.

What was your last case of a lose of limb?

In the west, the treatment of Gays is, I think over reported, to be harsh to the point where your homophobia as compared to the Christian one is more extreme. Up to the point of death. Is this so?

The issue of women also is overdone, IE. the new laws in Afghanistan where women are to be locked in the home and MUST service the husband on demand. Do you hold a view on this issue? I know that there are different sects to Islam and wonder if this type of law is across the board, so to speak.

Regards
DL

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Sect or no sect, you can't bound the woman in the home like shes a criminal. She doesn't "have" to service to the husband but she does it to please God.

[alcurad]

note that those are usually tribal/local laws, not ones based on/in agreement with Islamic principles necessarily.

[Great I am not]

Sect or no sect, you can't bound the woman in the home like shes a criminal. She doesn't "have" to service to the husband but she does it to please God.

Not sure what you mean here.

Are you saying that the sect is wrong in terms of God wish?

How does sexual submission to a demanding husband please God/Allah? I did not think that God/Allah had concerns as to how often a man is gratified.

Regards
DL

[Great I am not]

note that those are usually tribal/local laws, not ones based on/in agreement with Islamic principles necessarily.

Should Islam not denounce them then?
Is Islam as fractures as Christianity? Most have one wife, some have as many as can be afforded. Some venerate Mary, some not and on and on.

I note that no one has spoken to my question of Gays.
Sorry if I hit a nerve.

I still do not have an example to the issue of amputated limbs.

It will be hard to compare the standards of justice if issues are to be ignored.

Regards
DL

[Zafran]

I note that no one has spoken to my question of Gays.
Sorry if I hit a nerve.

Homosexuality is a sin - as it is in chirstainity and Judiaism.

[Zafran]

How does sexual submission to a demanding husband please God/Allah? I did not think that God/Allah had concerns as to how often a man is gratified.

works both ways - not just one way.

[Zafran]

Is Islam as fractures as Christianity?

85% are sunni so its not as bad a christainty.

[Zafran]

Should Islam not denounce them then?

what does that mean???

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Not sure what you mean here.

Are you saying that the sect is wrong in terms of God wish?

How does sexual submission to a demanding husband please God/Allah? I did not think that God/Allah had concerns as to how often a man is gratified.

Regards
DL

Please explain where in my post I said any of that?

The issue isnt of sect or w/e u wana call it. Women arent obligated to do anything, infact the Prophet(saw) used to do most of the house chores himself. Many Muslims are not representative of that as u can tell. For instance she doesnt "have" to clean/cook but she does it because she is rewarded for her patience. Whatever we do, we do to please God. The husband is considered the provider of the household, since he goes out of the home to provide for himself and his family, ensuring they have a decent livelihood, so it would only make sense that the woman takes care of the house in his absence. But even the husband should help out still. Men and women, whe nthey r married should cooperate with one another, not oppressing each other.

[aamirsaab]

What was your last case of a lose of limb?

LOL. I haven't been keeping track of muslim-country punishments so can't say. But, I was speaking theoretically in my previous post.

In the west, the treatment of Gays is, I think over reported, to be harsh to the point where your homophobia as compared to the Christian one is more extreme. Up to the point of death. Is this so?

First off; it's only punishable if any sexual act has occurred and if there have been witnesses to the event (this is again deliberately difficult to prove due to the considerably harsh punishments).

Again; it is not the only punishment and it can be swayed depending on the case. It is not a ''look there is a homo, let's kill him'' kind of deal as certain folk would have you believe.

The issue of women also is overdone, IE. the new laws in Afghanistan where women are to be locked in the home and MUST service the husband on demand. Do you hold a view on this issue? I know that there are different sects to Islam and wonder if this type of law is across the board, so to speak.

Regards
DL

There is no law in Sharia to keep women locked in the home and/or service husband on demand. This being said, laws can and do change depending on the social norms of a country and muslim countries are no different. For example; if there is an underpopulation of women to men (say, 1:3), then polgynous marriages may be outlawed in that specific country (simply because there are not enough females).

Another example is: if the economy of a country is in really bad shape, say due to a war or famine, then the theft punishments may be completely eradicated (until the economy kicks start again).

The principle of Sharia is justice and peace in a society; so we are allowed to 'go against' the teachings in certain extreme eventualities in order to achieve that.

Now, coming back to your question: I myself don't know enough about Afghanistan's socio climate so cannot tell you what that law is based on; I'm assuming it's because there is a war going on (due to the nature of this particular war, where indiscriminate killing is rife) and they don't want their women/civilians to die (sort of like a curfew), although I could be completely wrong as this is just a stab in the dark from a person who has very little knowledge on that country.

[ragdollcat1982]

Sect or no sect, you can't bound the woman in the home like shes a criminal. She doesn't "have" to service to the husband but she does it to please God.

Other than menstration and recovery from childbirth where relations are prohibited. Can a woman ever tell her husband no? Say if she is just too tired or ill or can he just take what he thinks is rightfully his anyway? I understand that a couple should make each other available for the other, even the Bible tells married Christians not to defraud one another except by mutual consent and fasting and prayer for a brief time. My husband and I abstained during Lent which is a period of 40 days, but if I say no, my husband knows it means no. We have laws in America against marital rape.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

I actually dont know lol. I was speaking in reference to taking care of the home like cooking and such.

[ragdollcat1982]

I actually dont know lol. I was speaking in reference to taking care of the home like cooking and such.

I think the OP was referring to more physical relations:-[

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

^^ Lol I figured that after he used the "code" word :X

[ragdollcat1982]

^^ Lol I figured that after he used the "code" word :X

LOL. :-[:-[Im embarrassed.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

^^:-[ Your making meee embarassed! Aiyyaaaa. *leaves*

[Great I am not]

Homosexuality is a sin - as it is in chirstainity and Judiaism.

Sin usually has a victim. With Gays there is none.

Why then is it a sin?
In my country, the government says it has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. I agree. Religion, to me should think the same way.

God creates our souls and natures. Is our best bet then not to follow these wherever they take us?

I would think that God knows what He is doing better tan men.

Regards
DL

[Great I am not]

works both ways - not just one way.

Not equally from what I understand.
He need only wait 4 days.
She must wait 4 months.

Would the law have passed if it was the reverse?

Your answer certainly does not show why God would have an interest in the sexual gratification of men and women.

Regards
DL

[جوري]

You are absolutely right, what people do in their bedrooms is their own business.
But a sin it is, as tenets of religions are a done deal and not subject to re-interpretation.
a Sin doesn't have to be palpable or cause direct harm, although homosexuality is indeed harmful in many ways.. on the lowest common denominator it doesn't allow for perpetuation of a specie -- surely if God loves mankind, he'd want it to survive .. homosexuality isn't beneficial on any level, I can't even fit it in a naturalistic manner since 'nature' would not allow for traits that are harmful to the survival of a group, and well we already know the religious stand on it.
Many sexually transmitted diseases have an increased chance of occurrence through anal sex than regular sex, even such protozoal organisms as Cryptosporidium parvum which causes chronic diarrhea and biliary disease in people with AIDS can be Sexually Transmitted even though it is a water borne organism and usually affects hikers who drink stream water.. imagine that

homosexuality becomes a problem when they are scantily clad and parading in front of children on the streets, it becomes a problem when they desire a marriage recognized by "God"-- if they desire a state marriage in a secular state, I don't see how anyone can protest really. If they want a religious marriage recognized by God, I don't see how anyone can condone it really.

So you are right indeed, God knows better than men, and such an act is considered an abomination and a cardinal sin!

all the best

[Great I am not]

85% are sunni so its not as bad a christainty.

Very true.

Goes to show in how many ways the one Bible can be interpreted and misinterpreted. If you add in the way that Islam interprets it, it even gets worse.

I personally thing that Constantine's Bible was a first draft that is in sorry need of a rewrite to a more useful and inclusive Bible instead of the divisive document that it is.

It is way too full of contradictions and debatable meanings. Much like the Quoran from the little I understand.

Regards
DL

[جوري]

Much like the Quoran from the little I understand.

Regards
DL

I agree with that sentiment.. if you understand little about a topic why engage in it?


all the best

[Great I am not]

what does that mean???

If they do not tow the line they should be ousted from Islam.
Individual sects should not be allowed to make their own rules and still remain in Islam. Then again, I believe the same should hold true for Christianity.
In Christianity, the Bible clearly says one man one wife. Some sects have many wives and these sects should be ousted and prevented from using the name of Christian. They end up hurting the mother religion.

The same should apply to Islam. If the bulk of Islam is offended by the new sex laws of some sect, they should be able to oust them, as keeping them in might paint all of Islam with the same brush. Look at the damage all fundamentals of all religions do to the parent religion. Ridiculous. Oust the *******s.

Regards
DL

[Great I am not]

Please explain where in my post I said any of that?

The issue isnt of sect or w/e u wana call it. Women arent obligated to do anything, infact the Prophet(saw) used to do most of the house chores himself. Many Muslims are not representative of that as u can tell. For instance she doesnt "have" to clean/cook but she does it because she is rewarded for her patience. Whatever we do, we do to please God. The husband is considered the provider of the household, since he goes out of the home to provide for himself and his family, ensuring they have a decent livelihood, so it would only make sense that the woman takes care of the house in his absence. But even the husband should help out still. Men and women, whe nthey r married should cooperate with one another, not oppressing each other.

I agree but if you read the new law in Afghanistan, it is oppressive. Like it or not she must submit. I speak of the frequency in a post above.

Regards
DL

[جوري]

'Marital rape law' a measure applies to the 20% of Afghans who are Shiite Muslims. It was part of a massive piece of legislation aimed at bolstering the nation's Shiite minority.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_w..._rape_law.html


shiites are a faction and not recognized as Muslims by the majority who happen to be 85-90% of Muslims.. hardly seems like an issue one should be addressing on a Muslim sunni forum, but indeed, you should question them on the appropriateness of such a law since there is no grounds for it under proper Islamic jurisprudence!

all the best

[جوري]

Other than menstration and recovery from childbirth where relations are prohibited. Can a woman ever tell her husband no? Say if she is just too tired or ill or can he just take what he thinks is rightfully his anyway? I understand that a couple should make each other available for the other, even the Bible tells married Christians not to defraud one another except by mutual consent and fasting and prayer for a brief time. My husband and I abstained during Lent which is a period of 40 days, but if I say no, my husband knows it means no. We have laws in America against marital rape.

Islamic stance on rape:

Name of Questioner

Muhammad

Title

Islamic Punishment for Rape

Question

What is the ruling on the crime of rape in Islam?

Date

12/Sep/2005

Name of Counsellor

Muhammad Saleh Al-Munajjid

Topic

Crimes & Penalties, Adultery & Fornication, Mischief

Answer

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.
Thanks for your question, and we implore Allah to guide us all to the best and to help us gain insight to understand the teachings of Islam.
Rape is an abhorrent crime and an abominable sin. This heinous crime is forbidden not only in Islam but in all religions, and all people of sound thinking and pure human nature reject it.
Responding to the question, the prominent Saudi Islamic lecturer and author Sheikh Muhammad Saleh Al-Munajjid states the following:

The Arabic word ightisab (rape) refers to taking something wrongfully by force. It is now used exclusively to refer to transgression against the honor of women by force.
This is an abhorrent crime that is forbidden in all religions and in the minds of all wise people and those who possess sound human nature. All earthly systems and laws regard this action as abhorrent and impose the strictest penalties on it.
Islam has a clear stance which states that this repugnant action is haram (forbidden) and imposes a deterrent punishment on the one who commits it.
Islam closes the door to the criminal who wants to commit this crime. Western studies have shown that most rapists are already criminals who commit their crimes under the influence of alcohol and drugs, and they take advantage of the fact that their victims are walking alone in isolated places or staying in the house alone. These studies also show that what the criminals watch on the media and the semi-naked styles of dress in which women go out also lead to the commission of this reprehensible crime.
The laws of Islam came to protect women’s honor and modesty. Islam forbids women to wear clothes that are not modest. In addition, Islam encourages young men and women to marry early, and many other rulings that close the door before rape and other crimes. Hence it comes as no surprise when we hear or read that most of these crimes occur in permissive societies, which are looked up to by some Muslims as examples of civilization and refinement! It is worth mentioning here that in America , for example, Amnesty International stated in a 2004 report entitled “Stop Violence Against Women” that every 90 seconds a woman was raped during that year.
The punishment for rape in Islam is the same as the punishment for zina (adultery or fornication), which is stoning if the perpetrator is married, and one hundred lashes and banishment for one year if he is not married.
Moreover, Ibn `Abdul-Barr (may Allah bless his soul) said

The scholars are unanimously agreed that the rapist is to be subjected to the hadd punishment if there is clear evidence against him that he deserves the hadd punishment, or if he admits to that. Otherwise, he is to be punished (that is, if there is no proof that the hadd punishment for zina may be carried out against him because he does not confess and there are not four witnesses, then the judge may punish him and stipulate a punishment that will deter him and others like him). There is no punishment for the woman if it is true that he forced her and overpowered her. (Al-Istidhkaar, 7/146).

In addition, the rapist is subject to the hadd punishment for zina, even if the rape was not carried out at knifepoint or gunpoint. If the use of a weapon was threatened, then he is a muharib, and is to be subjected to the hadd punishment described in the verse in which Allah says (The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter) (Al-Ma’idah 5:33).
So the judge has the choice of the four punishments mentioned in this verse and may choose whichever he thinks is most suitable to attain the objective, which is to spread peace and security in society, and ward off evildoers and aggressors.

Source: www.islam-qa.com

__________________________________________________ ______

Name of Questioner

Muslimah - Pakistan

Title

Punishment for Rapists

Question

In the Shari`ah, is there a certain punishment for a rapist?

Date

22/Feb/2007

Name of Mufti

Ahmad Yusuf Sulaiman

Topic

Crimes & Penalties

Answer

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. All praise and thanks are due to Allah and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.
Dear questioner, thanks for your question, and we implore Allah Almighty to help us serve His cause and render our work for His sake.
Islamically speaking, the raped woman is not guilty of any sin because she was forced to it beyond her control. Stressing this, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have said, “Allah has forgiven my Ummah for their mistakes, what they forget and what they are forced to do.” Thus, the raped woman is a victim and all members of her community should deal with her with honor and kindness and should encourage her to obtain her rights through all possible means.
In an attempt to furnish you with an answer to your question, we would like to cite for you the following fatwa issued by Dr. Ahmad Yusuf Sulaiman, professor of law and Islamic Shari`ah at Cairo University:

If a woman is raped, she should press charges against the one who raped her. If it is proved that she was raped, then the court must apply discretionary punishment or ta`zir on the rapist. Such discretionary punishment may reach the death penalty, according to some schools of thought. This is based wholly on the fact that the rape is confirmed through medical tests and court procedures, without the confession of the rapist himself.
In cases where the rapist confesses the crime, then the penalty for zina (illegitimate sexual intercourse) is to be applied to him. If he is not married, then he is to be whipped 100 lashes. If he is married, then he is to be stoned to death.
As for the rape victim, no punishment is to be inflicted on her. She is to be treated with dignity and honor, and all forms of help should be given to her to gain her rights.

______________________________________________

Name of Questioner

Akhtar

Title

Are Raped Women Asked to Bring Four Witnesses?

Question

Dear scholars, As-Salamu `alaykum. When it says to bring four witnesses against a woman who has committed indecency, is it for the woman who has been raped or this is for a married woman whose husband is in doubt about her indecency? Please explain in detail.

Date

29/Aug/2004

Name of Mufti

Ahmad Kutty

Topic

Misconceptions

Answer

Wa `alaykum As-Salamu wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh.

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.


All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.


Dear brother in Islam, thanks a lot for your question which reflects your care to have a clear view of the teachings of Islam. Allah commands Muslims to refer to people of knowledge to get themselves well-acquainted with the teachings of Islam as well as all aspects of life.

In Islam, we are not allowed to tarnish the honor of anyone. One is required to produce four witnesses when making an allegation of adultery against another person; otherwise, one will be guilty of slandering.

A raped woman is a victim that must be treated with honor and kindness. She is not required to produce four witnesses to prove the crime done against her, nor is she punished for the crime done against her.

In his response to your question, Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, states:

If a person makes an allegation of adultery against another person (male or female) he or she must produce four witnesses to support such an allegation; otherwise, he or she is guilty of slandering, which is a grave offense in Islam, for we are not to tarnish the honor of anyone.

A woman who has been raped cannot be asked to produce witnesses; her claim shall be accepted unless there are tangible grounds to prove otherwise. To insist that she provide witnesses is akin to inflicting further pain on her. If anyone refutes her claim of innocence, the onus is on him to provide evidence, and she may simply deny the claim by making a solemn oath, thus clearing herself in public. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “The onus to provide evidence falls on the one who makes a claim, and the one who denies (the same) can absolve himself or herself by making a solemn oath to the contrary.”

As for a spouse who witnesses his or her partner committing adultery and the other party denies it and they are unable to provide witnesses, they are, if they so desire, to part company by repudiating each other by engaging in what is known as a solemn oath and prayer of curse (li`an). It is described thus in the Qur’an: “And those who accuse their wives, and have no witnesses but themselves, then the testimony of each of them shall be a testimony sworn by God repeated four times, that he is indeed truthful. And the fifth (oath) is that God’s curse be upon him if he is lying. And it shall avert punishment from her that she testify a testimony repeated and sworn by God four times, that he is lying. And a fifth (oath) that the wrath of God be upon her, if he has spoken the truth” (An-Nur: 6-9).

Excerpted, with slight modifications, from: www.muslims
__________________________________________________

Name of Questioner Nina Title Are Raped Women Punished in Islam? Date 26/Nov/2007 Question Dear respected scholars,

My question is simply about raped women. I know that Islam doesn't punish a raped woman because simply it’s out of her hands. But some people say that they should be punished.

Can you please tell me the state of the "raped" in Islam.

Jazakallahu khayran

Topic Human Rights, Women's life Name of Counselor Kamal Badr
Answer
Salam, Nina.

Thanks for your question.

As the question mostly revolves around raped women, I would confine my answer to that point, without delving into the issue of punishing the rapist, on which there is no controversy that if it is proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that he is guilty of the crime, he will serve the punishment.

But I would like to make it clear that this crime can be proved either by confession or testimony or even through any modern means, thanks for the great revolution that has taken place in the field of science. This has made it easier for criminal experts to lay their hands on clear evidence that paves way for justice to run its course.

So what I am trying to say is that, contrary to what some Westerners claim, the issue is not just "bring four witnesses or set the accused free". Shari`ah is not a legal system that keeps itself away from realities of life. Rather, it is practical in the sense that its mechanism of justice operates in a quite flexible way that makes all its precepts and rulings applicable at all time. Anyway, as I have said, I will not go into details on that now.

Moving to your question. Yes, sister, raped women are not punished in Islam. What punishment? This is like saying that a person robbed of his property should be punished.

It is a fact that, to be absolved from guilt, the raped woman must have shown some sort of good conduct, in the sense that what befell her must be something beyond her control. This is where Islam excels.

In dealing with a certain issue or addressing a certain problem, it brings forth a comprehensive panacea that uproots the problem and eliminates its causes. Rather than stipulating a temporary measure that will act as sedatives, Islam gets down to the root of the problem itself with the aim of uprooting entirely.

It sets noble codes of conduct that should prevail in the society; it addresses women to maintain their modesty, as not to open the door for evils:

*{… be not too complacent of speech, lest one in whose heart is a disease should be moved with desire: but speak ye a speech (that is) just.}* (Al-Ahzab 33: 32)

The above verse, despite addressing the wives of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) actually, in an implicit way, calls upon Muslim women in general to preserve their dignity and modesty, just to save themselves from any harassment.

This injunction sounds more explicit in the following verse:

*{O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.}* (Al-Ahzab 33: 59)

This is Islam. As we have reiterated before, it does not hunt for crimes just to punish; rather, it works towards the means of blocking the avenues of crimes. Even when it punishes, it does not punish blindly; rather, it strikes the guilty hand.

So, for a rape victim to be absolved from guilt, she must not be the one that opens her house for robbery and her dignity for deflowering. If, after trying her best to resist the attack, she gets overcome by the assailants, she is totally absolved from punishment.

Muslim scholars are unanimous on this. They maintain that any woman, who, despite doing her utmost to resist these thugs and their ilk, is raped, is not guilty of any sin. This is since the situation is beyond her control, and anyone who is forced to do something is not guilty of sin. This is even in the case of disbelief, which is worse than zina (sex out of marriage), as Allah says what means:

*{… except him who is forced thereto and whose heart is at rest with faith}* (An-Nahl 16: 106)

The Prophet said: "Allah has forgiven for my Ummah for their mistakes, what they forget and what they are forced to do."

In showing reaction to this heinous crime, Islam takes into consideration the terrible effects it has on its victims. Most rape victims have their self-esteem diminished after an assault or abuse, driving them to be hunted by frequent shame, humiliation and loss of control.

This situation may even exacerbate to the point of making rape victims find it difficult to be intimate with others. That is why Islam lays down certain strategies, which all in all, aim at soothing the rape victim, opening for her new channels of hope and survival.

That is why Islam makes it clear that any Muslim woman who falls prey to a rapist will be rewarded for bearing this calamity with patience, if she seeks Allah's reward for the harm that has befallen her.

The Prophet says:

"No stress or exhaustion befalls the Muslim, nor worry or distress, even a thorn which pricks him, but Allah will forgive his sins because of that." (Al-Bukhari)

The society also has a role to play in rehabilitating the rape victim. Instead of deserting her or considering her a person non grata in the society, for the crime she has no hand in, Islam calls upon the society to rush to assist her in modifying and improving her life. We should show her the way out the pain of abuse.

Thus, many Muslim scholars, led by Sheikh Al-Qaradawi, have maintained that young Muslim men should hasten to marry women who fall as rape victims, so as to reduce their suffering and console them, to compensate them for the loss of the most precious thing that they possess. This reflects mutual love, rapport and altruism that prevail in the Muslim society.

This is, in brief, how Islam caters for raped women. Please keep in touch.

_________________________________

hope that takes care of all your q's
you can always pose your questions to them directly or search their data base islamonline.net

all the best

as for not being in the mood, well I imagine it a matter best discussed between husband and wife?.. I don't imagine Muslim men to be any different than any regular joe if you sit em down and have a good talk- I am sure they can cut down on their brutishness and show some understanding!

all the best

[Great I am not]

'Marital rape law' a measure applies to the 20% of Afghans who are Shiite Muslims. It was part of a massive piece of legislation aimed at bolstering the nation's Shiite minority.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_w..._rape_law.html


shiites are a faction and not recognized as Muslims by the majority who happen to be 85-90% of Muslims.. hardly seems like an issue one should be addressing on a Muslim sunni forum, but indeed, you should question them on the appropriateness of such a law since there is no grounds for it under proper Islamic jurisprudence!

all the best

Good to hear. My respect rises.

Muslims then should be more vocal in letting the world know this.

Unfortunately all of Islam is seen as one.

Regards
DL

[Great I am not]

The requirement of 4 witnesses seems to say that if a perpetrator is discreet, he or she will never see justice done against them.

Why 4? Why not 3 or 2 or with evidence 1?

Regards
DL

[aamirsaab]

The requirement of 4 witnesses seems to say that if a perpetrator is discreet, he or she will never see justice done against them.

Why 4? Why not 3 or 2 or with evidence 1?

Regards
DL

Have you seen the punishment for a crime that requires 4 witnesses? It is extremely harsh and as such needs to have a lot of evidence. It is hard enough to get one witness to such acts (with modern technology such as cctv etc), let alone four.

Another reason for 4 witnesses is simple: a counter measure to prevent people from missusing the system i.e making a claim against such and such that he/she is an adulterer - if one person makes that claim, you can probably bet they have a personal vendetta against the dude/dudette in question; if four different people are making the same claim, then there is probably some truth in it (if there is not, and these are found out to be conspirators against that individual, they are blacklisted from their community for their dishonesty); again acting as a fail safe to prevent witch hunting/slandering etc.

Similarly, it acts as a form of supreme justice in that it would rather an evil man escape than punish a righteous man.

Of course, the law of large numbers and the mere fact that the majority of people being law abiding to begin with, makes it difficult for the wrong guy to be slandered against in the first place (let alone taken to court over any matters). So everything works out in a fair and just manner, theoretically speaking.

[جوري]

Good to hear. My respect rises.

Muslims then should be more vocal in letting the world know this.

Unfortunately all of Islam is seen as one.

Regards
DL

Greetings,

Muslims are very vocal, not many want to give them the air time-- other non-Islamic forums delete posts from Muslims members if they are deemed contenders, hence I can no longer bother to be on them... I think if anyone were interested in the truth, it is out there as easy as an open book...

all the best

[Zafran]

Greetings,

Muslims are very vocal, not many want to give them the air time-- other non-Islamic forums delete posts from Muslims members if they are deemed contenders, hence I can no longer bother to be on them... I think if anyone were interested in the truth, it is out there as easy as an open book...

all the best

Salaam

well said - it is similar about terroism and what Muslims think about it - the overwhelming opinion is that its wrong yet you always hear people say where are the muslims condeming it. When in reality Muslims are condeming it all over the place - The media just doesnt want them on because then the same people will start to condenm the Colonist, Imperalistic policies of america.

Maybe the same question could be applied about americans and there governments colonist, imperailistic foriegn policy - where are the americans condeming it? - the mainstream media will never let those people on.

[Great I am not]

Have you seen the punishment for a crime that requires 4 witnesses? It is extremely harsh and as such needs to have a lot of evidence. It is hard enough to get one witness to such acts (with modern technology such as cctv etc), let alone four.

Another reason for 4 witnesses is simple: a counter measure to prevent people from missusing the system i.e making a claim against such and such that he/she is an adulterer - if one person makes that claim, you can probably bet they have a personal vendetta against the dude/dudette in question; if four different people are making the same claim, then there is probably some truth in it (if there is not, and these are found out to be conspirators against that individual, they are blacklisted from their community for their dishonesty); again acting as a fail safe to prevent witch hunting/slandering etc.

Similarly, it acts as a form of supreme justice in that it would rather an evil man escape than punish a righteous man.

Of course, the law of large numbers and the mere fact that the majority of people being law abiding to begin with, makes it difficult for the wrong guy to be slandered against in the first place (let alone taken to court over any matters). So everything works out in a fair and just manner, theoretically speaking.

If you say so but you made my case with this.

" It is hard enough to get one witness to such acts (with modern technology such as cctv etc), let alone four."

Regards
DL

[Great I am not]

Greetings,

Muslims are very vocal, not many want to give them the air time-- other non-Islamic forums delete posts from Muslims members if they are deemed contenders, hence I can no longer bother to be on them... I think if anyone were interested in the truth, it is out there as easy as an open book...

all the best

I too have had problem but the other way. It is Muslim board who ban me. I am pleased that I have found this one although my first two postings and first OP were deleted.

Regards
DL

[Great I am not]

Salaam

well said - it is similar about terroism and what Muslims think about it - the overwhelming opinion is that its wrong yet you always hear people say where are the muslims condeming it. When in reality Muslims are condeming it all over the place - The media just doesnt want them on because then the same people will start to condenm the Colonist, Imperalistic policies of america.

Maybe the same question could be applied about americans and there governments colonist, imperailistic foriegn policy - where are the americans condeming it? - the mainstream media will never let those people on.

I think that much of the misunderstanding of various religions is that they are all so sure of the interpretations of their books that they have forgotten that God began as master of all and must end that way. that makes Him a universalist and most religions are not inclusive but exclusive. us and them when it should all be us.

We all yell at each other about what this God or that God says without logically working out what a true God should say in words of today. We are trying to work with translated words from other translated word that all come from oral tradition that had it's own context and meaning.

Regards
DL

[aamirsaab]

If you say so but you made my case with this.

" It is hard enough to get one witness to such acts (with modern technology such as cctv etc), let alone four."

Regards
DL

If a criminal is descreet about any crime he/she commits, it is highly unlikely they will be caught (and thus justice shall not be done), so I don't see how I have made your case any stronger.

[Walkinfront]

Regarding the cutting off of the limbs:

Someone in my family lived in Saudi Arabia for 15 years, and I have some friends there still. There they do in fact still cut off limbs for stealing and other crimes if there are witnesses present. Now I think that if the victim forgives the criminal (doesnt press charges for example) then the criminal does not deal with punishment of cutting off the limbs. I know for a fact this is true with murder cases, but not so sure about smaller things like stealing.

There is a true story where at the last second when the murder was about to be executed, the family of the victim forgave him just as the sword was being sharpened. He was let go.

Inshallah that answers part of your question.

[Great I am not]

If a criminal is descreet about any crime he/she commits, it is highly unlikely they will be caught (and thus justice shall not be done), so I don't see how I have made your case any stronger.

I said that it was not just and you just replied that justice shall not be done.

We agree on my point. That is how you make my case.

Regards
DL

[Great I am not]

Regarding the cutting off of the limbs:

Someone in my family lived in Saudi Arabia for 15 years, and I have some friends there still. There they do in fact still cut off limbs for stealing and other crimes if there are witnesses present. Now I think that if the victim forgives the criminal (doesnt press charges for example) then the criminal does not deal with punishment of cutting off the limbs. I know for a fact this is true with murder cases, but not so sure about smaller things like stealing.

There is a true story where at the last second when the murder was about to be executed, the family of the victim forgave him just as the sword was being sharpened. He was let go.

Inshallah that answers part of your question.

I have always thought it counter productive for a society to take a person who obviously steals bread because he is out of work, to cut off his hand and make it even harder for him to work. Just me I guess.

I recognize the concept of punishment for crime but is the state just not making it harder for the individual to find work and therefore helping or forcing him, in a sense, to turn to crime again?

Regards
DL

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

I believe the case is different if the person stealing is in fact poor and not just stealing because he's greedy.

[aamirsaab]

I said that it was not just and you just replied that justice shall not be done.

We agree on my point. That is how you make my case.

Regards
DL

Justice is not about punishing all evil; it's about getting an accurate conviction - you don't want to punish the wrong guy. There's no hard and fast way of doing this and as such some will innevitably slip through the net. But, as long as you convict the criminal and not the saint, justice is being done.

Letting an evil man go free because you thought he was good is far better than giving the death sentence to a good man because you thought he was bad. In the former, you can always give a retrial; in the latter you cannot.

Now do you understand the concept of justice in Islam?

[Beardo]

Justice is not about punishing all evil; it's about getting an accurate conviction - you don't want to punish the wrong guy. There's no hard and fast way of doing this and as such some will innevitably slip through the net. But, as long as you convict the criminal and not the saint, justice is being done.

Letting an evil man go free because you thought he was good is far better than giving the death sentence to a good man because you thought he was bad. In the former, you can always give a retrial; in the latter you cannot.

Now do you understand the concept of justice in Islam?

In smaller terms, "Innocent until proven guilty". I wonder where that proverb came from. It sounds so much like a Muslim phrase.

[aamirsaab]

I have always thought it counter productive for a society to take a person who obviously steals bread because he is out of work, to cut off his hand and make it even harder for him to work. Just me I guess.

I recognize the concept of punishment for crime but is the state just not making it harder for the individual to find work and therefore helping or forcing him, in a sense, to turn to crime again?

Regards
DL

There is no punishment for the one who steals bread. There are certain criteria needed to be met before any limb-cutting can occur for the crime of theft.
* item must not be food
* item must be of a certain value (greater than $3, last I checked)
* if the item is given back (or monetary value is given), no punishment
* thief has to be muslim (non-muslims are exempt from hudd punishments)
* thief has to be medically sane

[Beardo]

The hand cutting is a bit of a stereotype. I think someone was saying or I was reading that Saudi Arabia on average cuts maximum 5 hands a year. In another narraration, I heard the last few years it was 0-1...

But if we're talking about Muslims in general, that rule isn't played in role actively anywhere, I don't think. Despite it being a part of Islam. But I think the laws of the land you live in overrule that punishment, correct?

[Yanal]

I think the Western rules are better.

[جوري]

I think the Western rules are better.

good for you.. why are you Muslim?

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Western rules are better? The only better rules are the rules of Allah.

[Great I am not]

I believe the case is different if the person stealing is in fact poor and not just stealing because he's greedy.

Is there an English version of the Quoran or verse to look at?

Regards
DL

[Great I am not]

Justice is not about punishing all evil; it's about getting an accurate conviction - you don't want to punish the wrong guy. There's no hard and fast way of doing this and as such some will innevitably slip through the net. But, as long as you convict the criminal and not the saint, justice is being done.

Letting an evil man go free because you thought he was good is far better than giving the death sentence to a good man because you thought he was bad. In the former, you can always give a retrial; in the latter you cannot.

Now do you understand the concept of justice in Islam?

I understand the care you want to take in judgements and applaud it. To me though, depending on the crime and punishment involved, one should not need 4 witnesses when one with evidence will suffice. Or 2 or 3.

That is my only bone of contention.

Regards
DL

[Great I am not]

In smaller terms, "Innocent until proven guilty". I wonder where that proverb came from. It sounds so much like a Muslim phrase.

It is a good phrase.

It is the definition of proof that I dispute.

If a Muslim man sees another shoot someone and the authorities find blood on the accused, finger prints on the gun, powder burn to his hand and no alibi or story to show. The idea that he would not get to court because there is only one witness instead of 4, is to me, not the way that justice is done.

Regards
DL

[Great I am not]

There is no punishment for the one who steals bread. There are certain criteria needed to be met before any limb-cutting can occur for the crime of theft.
* item must not be food
* item must be of a certain value (greater than $3, last I checked)
* if the item is given back (or monetary value is given), no punishment
* thief has to be muslim (non-muslims are exempt from hudd punishments)
* thief has to be medically sane

That is better. It sound like the death penalty in some countries. It is in the books but is seldom if ever enacted.

Rather a nice system though if you happen to be a pick pocket. You could pick all week and if you happen to get caught, the penalty is rather light. A few dollars and away you go. Much lighter punishment than in most countries.

I am surprised that there is not more abuse of your systems or is there?

Regards
DL

[Great I am not]

The hand cutting is a bit of a stereotype. I think someone was saying or I was reading that Saudi Arabia on average cuts maximum 5 hands a year. In another narraration, I heard the last few years it was 0-1...

But if we're talking about Muslims in general, that rule isn't played in role actively anywhere, I don't think. Despite it being a part of Islam. But I think the laws of the land you live in overrule that punishment, correct?

I believe so. We do or had corporal punishment in the books for rapists and pedophiles that included the severing of the penis but I have never heard of this law, if it still exists being enacted. I believe it was a voluntary punishment to reduce or remove a jail sentence.

There are Biblical laws that are as draconian, I E. stoning but these too have never been enacted to my knowledge but if you ask Fundamental, they will tell you that it is a good law. They, to me, are foolish.

Deut 21

18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Regards
DL

[Great I am not]

I think the Western rules are better.

That may not be the answer if you ask an American Black or Hispanic.
Are you a white person?

Regards
DL

[Whatsthepoint]

* if the item is given back (or monetary value is given), no punishment

That doesn't make any sense.

[Great I am not]

Western rules are better? The only better rules are the rules of Allah.

If by western, you mean American, you might wonder why, if their rules are so good, they have the highest number of prisoners per capita, of the whole world.

Let's not be too hasty to not give credit where credit is due.

Regards
DL

[Great I am not]

That doesn't make any sense.

I have a criminal mind and a delenquint attitude, or at least I did when a young man. I am not that any more and am quite a good man today as compared to then but in a strange way, if you consider the times and conditions of the writing of that law. It would have been of some benefit to both the thief and the one that was being stolen from.

I do not know if I could even put the reasons to paper in a coherent way but ask that you think about it in those times and see if you can glean the good of that law.

I will wait and see how Muslims respond first and if they too see the good for the thief as well as the victim.

I am finding this quite interesting.
At least my ex criminal mind is.

Regards
DL

[Whatsthepoint]

I have a criminal mind and a delenquint attitude, or at least I did when a young man. I am not that any more and am quite a good man today as compared to then but in a strange way, if you consider the times and conditions of the writing of that law. It would have been of some benefit to both the thief and the one that was being stolen from.

I do not know if I could even put the reasons to paper in a coherent way but ask that you think about it in those times and see if you can glean the good of that law.

I will wait and see how Muslims respond first and if they too see the good for the thief as well as the victim.

I am finding this quite interesting.
At least my ex criminal mind is.

Regards
DL

If you can get away with it by giving the stolen item back the law ceases to act as a detterant. That's why it doesn't make sense.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

If by western, you mean American, you might wonder why, if their rules are so good, they have the highest number of prisoners per capita, of the whole world.

Let's not be too hasty to not give credit where credit is due.

Regards
DL

Your statement is confusing. Clarify who you're talking about.

[aamirsaab]

I understand the care you want to take in judgements and applaud it. To me though, depending on the crime and punishment involved, one should not need 4 witnesses when one with evidence will suffice. Or 2 or 3.

That is my only bone of contention.

Regards
DL

4 witnesses are only required for adultery cases. Even then, if there is sufficient evidence (such as cctv) then the judge will of course take this into account since the primary concept of Sharia is justice. Modern times allow such eventualities; but in those places where this may not be available (say 3rd world countries for instance) then the 4 witnesses stand. Again, it's only for adultery cases.

That is better. It sound like the death penalty in some countries. It is in the books but is seldom if ever enacted.

LOL. Heh well I don't blame you - most people do not know of the exact rulings, I myself only learnt a year ago (I purchased a book on sharia, you can too - click the first link in my sig; cost you 12.75 but small price to pay for knowledge!).

Rather a nice system though if you happen to be a pick pocket. You could pick all week and if you happen to get caught, the penalty is rather light. A few dollars and away you go. Much lighter punishment than in most countries.

Depends on frequency; if one guy steals 2 items, the judge may be lenient in punishments (i.e. simply compensate the victim). Compared that to a guy who steals 10 items, judge will come down like a ton of bricks (i.e. full reimbursment plus cost of loss to business if he stole stock for instance): in any case, the punishment will fit the crime.

I am surprised that there is not more abuse of your systems or is there?

Regards
DL

I don't have sufficient data on countries that do administer these sorts of punishments to give you a decent answer. But, I do recall a documentary on Sharia law in Nigeria where the Hudd punishments were handed out. The presenter (whilst I thought she was biased towards Islam during the program) did actually admit that crime was low in general, indicating that the system was working. But, that's all the info I have; I'd like to think that is the case in all sharia-compliant countries but in honesty I do not know (I intend to do research on that, however)

That doesn't make any sense.

If I steal your gameboy, but give it you back (say an hour later) and it is in fine condition (exactly as it was when I took it), would you prosecute me? You have your gameboy back; there is no problem or cime any longer (other than you are understandably angry) since the situation has been rectified.

It would be a waste of yours, mine and the law's time to prosecute me over something that I have given back. Yeah I stole it, but I then gave it back - the cops would laugh in your face and the judge would throw it out of court and tell me to either compensate you in addition or tell you to stop wasting time over a trivial thing.

This also has the added benefit of not clogging up the legal system (which happens a lot in the UK and US btw for really, really stupid cases).

In sharia, to avoid bottle knecking the system with such stupid cases, these sorts of ''get-out'' cards exist. They are for minor crimes in light of bigger ones such as lawsuits, vandalism, rape etc. That's not to say theft isn't a serious crime, just that it is something far easier to rectify than say a rape and so doesn't always have to be taken to court.

[Whatsthepoint]

If I steal your gameboy, but give it you back (say an hour later) and it is in fine condition (exactly as it was when I took it), would you prosecute me? You have your gameboy back; there is no problem or cime any longer (other than you are understandably angry) since the situation has been rectified.

It would be a waste of yours, mine and the law's time to prosecute me over something that I have given back. Yeah I stole it, but I then gave it back - the cops would laugh in your face and the judge would throw it out of court and tell me to either compensate you in addition or tell you to stop wasting time over a trivial thing.

This also has the added benefit of not clogging up the legal system (which happens a lot in the UK and US btw for really, really stupid cases).

In sharia, to avoid bottle knecking the system with such stupid cases, these sorts of ''get-out'' cards exist. They are for minor crimes in light of bigger ones such as lawsuits, vandalism, rape etc. That's not to say theft isn't a serious crime, just that it is something far easier to rectify than say a rape and so doesn't always have to be taken to court.

I'm quoting myself:
If you can get away with it by giving the stolen item back the law ceases to act as a detterant. I was told (by you I think) that the law is as harsh so it would act as a detterant.

[aamirsaab]

I'm quoting myself:
If you can get away with it by giving the stolen item back the law ceases to act as a detterant. I was told (by you I think) that the law is as harsh so it would act as a detterant.

Indeed it is to act as a deterrent. It is also to act as a form of compensation to the victim (i.e theif is punished). However, since in the case above, the thief has given the victim his goods back, what is there to compensate or deter? You have your goods back and nothing to charge me with in the first place. What would you tell the police: ''oh aamirsaab stole my gameboy, but he gave it back''. The matter has been settled before it has even got to court, heck before you have got to police station to make the claim of stolen goods.

But let's say for argument's sake, I keep the gameboy until you take me to court (so you've made the complaint of stolen goods, the police have charged me yadda yadda yadda). Judge would say: ''aamirsaab, either compensate wtp for the amount/value of that gameboy, or give him his gameboy back, else you will be punished''

Now, the worst case scenario is I steal your gameboy again (and give it you back). If I keep doing it and you report it to the police/judge, then I would receive some sort of punishment for being a nuisance (in UK law, this is called the mischief rule, where the judge uses his/her common sense and applies a punishment accordingly).

[Whatsthepoint]

Indeed it is to act as a deterrent. It is also to act as a form of compensation to the victim (i.e theif is punished). However, since in the case above, the thief has given the victim his goods back, what is there to compensate or deter? You have your goods back and nothing to charge me with in the first place. What would you tell the police: ''oh aamirsaab stole my gameboy, but he gave it back''. The matter has been settled before it has even got to court, heck before you have got to police station to make the claim of stolen goods.

But let's say for argument's sake, I keep the gameboy until you take me to court (so you've made the complaint of stolen goods, the police have charged me yadda yadda yadda). Judge would say: ''aamirsaab, either compensate wtp for the amount/value of that gameboy, or give him his gameboy back, else you will be punished''

Now, the worst case scenario is I steal your gameboy again (and give it you back). If I keep doing it and you report it to the police/judge, then I would receive some sort of punishment for being a nuisance (in UK law, this is called the mischief rule, where the judge uses his/her common sense and applies a punishment accordingly).

You don't et it. The act itself is immoral and there should be punishment for it and if getting away with it was as easy as returning the item nothing prevents people from setalign any more.

[aamirsaab]

You don't et it. The act itself is immoral and there should be punishment for it and if getting away with it was as easy as returning the item nothing prevents people from setalign any more.

Me giving the item back is not me getting away with it stealing the item. It is me settling the matter out of court and rectifying the situation. It is therefore no longer a crime and so no punishment could be given. There is no mens reaus (intent) any longer, so the law would not recognise it as a crime. It is exactly the same as in UK law btw.

Unless the item I stole is stock, me giving it you back would be all that is needed. If it had been stock, then I would have had to reimburse you for any loss in gaining that I had prevented because of stealing said item (in addition to giving the item or value of it, back to you).

Yes it is indeed immorale for me to steal in the first place, but if I return the item (undamaged etc) it's no longer theft in the eyes of the law.

[Great I am not]

Your statement is confusing. Clarify who you're talking about.

The U S is said to be the most Christian nation in the world. They also have the most per capita criminals in jail.

Muslims have a better per capita criminal record.

With this type of evidence, I am not as quick as some to say that the Christian produced systems are superior to the Muslim one.

I recognize that the Muslim systems are harder on women, or so it seems to us, and in some ways more intrusive that the west and the U S, but if the trade off from theirs to the west's is more crime then all should take a closer look before writing off the whole Muslim system for a more free to do crime U S one.

Perhaps the best system would be a mix of the two.

Regards
DL

[Great I am not]

[QUOTE=aamirsaab;1175444]QUOTE]

You are a stock trader.
You use insider information and cause many to lose their life savings.
Of the 1000 people effected, 4 suicide and your profit has bought you a yacht and sports care that you use for one year before your conscience kicks in and you repent and admit the crime.

I can see how the material goods can be replaced or paid for. What about the 4 deaths. What would your law do with this little scenario?

Regards
DL

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

The U S is said to be the most Christian nation in the world. They also have the most per capita criminals in jail.

Muslims have a better per capita criminal record.

With this type of evidence, I am not as quick as some to say that the Christian produced systems are superior to the Muslim one.

I recognize that the Muslim systems are harder on women, or so it seems to us, and in some ways more intrusive that the west and the U S, but if the trade off from theirs to the west's is more crime then all should take a closer look before writing off the whole Muslim system for a more free to do crime U S one.

Perhaps the best system would be a mix of the two.

Regards
DL

Of course there is still crime in the Muslim world and that is partially because the laws that Allah legislated aren't being followed properly. I'm not saying there won't be some weirdos under Shariah tryin to break the law, that's why we HAVE these laws, so as to control crime.

Btw, u happen to be speaking to a Muslim woman and let me assure you, i'm not oppressed in any shape or form nor are the laws God has ordered on us, hard on me.

[ragdollcat1982]

Of course there is still crime in the Muslim world and that is partially because the laws that Allah legislated aren't being followed properly. I'm not saying there won't be some weirdos under Shariah tryin to break the law, that's why we HAVE these laws, so as to control crime.

Btw, u happen to be speaking to a Muslim woman and let me assure you, i'm not oppressed in any shape or form.

What kind of theft constitutes having a persons hand cut off ? If I had a business and someone came in and stole something along the lines of food or medicine I would not prosecute them if they really needed it, instead I would have them come in and work off what they took. I can understand punishing a theif who steals just for the thrill or something they dont need, but is it really morally right to punish a woman for stealing food to feed her children?

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

I believe the law applies differently for people who steal out of necessity.
I actually dont know tho.

[Great I am not]

Of course there is still crime in the Muslim world and that is partially because the laws that Allah legislated aren't being followed properly. I'm not saying there won't be some weirdos under

tryin to break the law, that's why we HAVE these laws, so as to control crime.

Btw, u happen to be speaking to a Muslim woman and let me assure you, i'm not oppressed in any shape or form nor are the laws God has ordered on us, hard on me.

Ease up woman, I am basically saying that some of your laws may have merit over U S law. Am I not clear enough for you again?

Now if you are clear on my view.

Shariah law can be taken too far in term of personal freedom.
I take it you do not live in Afganistan? Would you like to be at the beck and call of your husband whenever his thing was itchy?

Or Iran for that mater where, as we speak, women are showing just what they think of oppressive laws. Or in those eastern countries who have chosen secular law over Shariah.

People must have freedom and law combined for full happiness.
Shariah was written for men by men. A dictator man for that matter.

It has oppressive laws that govern things it should not like dress, diet, sexual maters and others that would have to be revised to be palatable to any freedom loving person.

That is why I said that perhaps the best system, because of the high crime of the west, would be a mix of both systems.

If Muslums do not take seriously what Vatican II tried to accomplish and either gets on board or finds it's own way to have a rapprochement with the west then Islam will eventually die or create more wars that the east will lose.

Regards
DL

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

I like how you give unIslamic countries as your source for Shariah, when in fact this isn't the case. People r choosing secular laws over Shariah assuming its Shariah. Half and half of shariah laws doesnt make it Shariah, nor Islamic. I'd choose Shariah law anytime, anywhere, anyday.

Islam will eventually die

Islam will never die and this I guarantee to you, whether you accept it or not.

[ragdollcat1982]

[QUOTE=Light of Heaven;1175878


Islam will never die and this I guarantee to you, whether you accept it or not.[/QUOTE]


Niether will Judism, Christianity or the other religions that have been around for many millenia.

[Zafran]

Niether will Judism, Christianity or the other religions that have been around for many millenia.

maybe but atheism is ripe in Jews and some ex christian countries. Thats preety much how its stacking up.

[ragdollcat1982]

maybe but atheism is ripe in Jews and some ex christian countries. Thats preety much how its stacking up.

In USA it seems that we are experiencing a spirtual revival among some segments of society. :)

[Zafran]

In USA it seems that we are experiencing a spirtual revival among some segments of society. :)

Cant say the same about europe - its all going opposite but then theres the muslims:D -

I believe right wing evengelicalism is becoming very strong in america?

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Niether will Judism, Christianity or the other religions that have been around for many millenia.

I'm in the hopes u didnt take my post the wrong way, just something I found offensive from him.

[Yanal]

:salamext:
Dont worry if any injustice is happening:
The Prophet Muhammad* said: {People, beware of injustice,5 for injustice shall be darkness on the Day of Judgment.}6

[aamirsaab]

You are a stock trader.
You use insider information and cause many to lose their life savings.
Of the 1000 people effected, 4 suicide and your profit has bought you a yacht and sports care that you use for one year before your conscience kicks in and you repent and admit the crime.

I can see how the material goods can be replaced or paid for. What about the 4 deaths. What would your law do with this little scenario?

Regards
DL

The stock trader would not be responsible for the suicides - those individuals have intentionally taken their own lifes; it has nothing to do with the stock trader. So no crime has been commited on that front.

If the insider information was obtained through theft, then the stock trader may be prosecuted for that, but otherwise no crime has been commited.

[Muezzin]

You are a stock trader.
You use insider information and cause many to lose their life savings.
Of the 1000 people effected, 4 suicide and your profit has bought you a yacht and sports care that you use for one year before your conscience kicks in and you repent and admit the crime.

I can see how the material goods can be replaced or paid for. What about the 4 deaths. What would your law do with this little scenario?

Regards
DL

Same thing secular law would do. Nothing on the counts of suicide, because the chain of causation has broken - the stock trader is not directly responsible for their deaths, so he has committed no crime on that front. How one could induce suicide in any case, I don't know.

As for his guilty conscience, he'd probably be recommended therapy.

You don't et it. The act itself is immoral and there should be punishment for it and if getting away with it was as easy as returning the item nothing prevents people from setalign any more.

So I take it you don't like most secular laws of theft either then? Because, in them, if the perpetrator returns the item, the act is not a crime.

In British law at least, the mental element of theft is 'intention to unlawfully take property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it'.

If Johnny takes Peter's radio with the intention of never giving it back, he has committed theft as defined by the law.

If Johnny takes Peter's radio without telling Peter, but intends to return it in the same condition, Johnny has not committed theft as defined by the law, because he gave the property back.

This is all broadly speaking, of course. Different circumstances would affect the outcome, such as if Johnny 'borrowed' the radio by first breaking into Peter's house.

The point on deterrence is irrelevant because in the eyes of the law, no theft has occurred unless the person intends to permanently deprive the victim of his property. Now, if, in the example, Johnny did in fact intend to permanently deprive Peter of the radio at the time of taking it, but gave it back simply to avoid criminal proceedings, there would indeed be issues to work through.

[Whatsthepoint]

The point on deterrence is irrelevant because in the eyes of the law, no theft has occurred unless the person intends to permanently deprive the victim of his property. Now, if, in the example, Johnny did in fact intend to permanently deprive Peter of the radio at the time of taking it, but gave it back simply to avoid criminal proceedings, there would indeed be issues to work through.

That's how I understood aamirsab post. The perpetrator can avoid having his hands cut off if he rturns the stolen item or an appropriate monetary sum. Which is wrong and it is not how modern laws work if the thief gets caught.

[Muezzin]

That's how I understood aamirsab post. The perpetrator can avoid having his hands cut off if he rturns the stolen item or an appropriate monetary sum. Which is wrong and it is not how modern laws work if the thief gets caught.

Well, in a Sharia court, the judge's word is final. It is at his or her sole discretion whether or not to let the perpetrator go unpunished in those circumstances.

In modern secular law, if the thief is caught then claims to want to return the item, there is indeed a problem. If the person is telling the truth, arguably no offence has been comitted (but this seems fishy to say the least). If, however, they are simply trying to avoid punishment, it would indeed be wrong to let them go free.

Which is why Sharia courts, as their secular counterparts, govern cases on an individual basis.

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:


Cut off (from the wrist joint) the (right) hand of the thief, male or female, as a recompense for that which they committed, a punishment by way of example from Allâh. And Allâh is All*Powerful, All*Wise.

But whosoever repents after his crime and does righteous good deeds (by obeying Allâh), then verily, Allâh will pardon him (accept his repentance). Verily, Allâh is Oft*Forgiving, Most Merciful.


(Qur'an Al Ma'ida 5:38)



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 Imam 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 Imam Abu Hanifa the punishment is not applied to the non-muslim living in the muslim state, however Imam Shafi', Imam Malik and Imam 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 guard.

...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 lives 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.



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?

*http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_bur



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. 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 in this regard.


http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/q...ief-5-38-a-634

[Whatsthepoint]

edit

[- Qatada -]

edit

SOURCE: The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2002) (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)


http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ime-burglaries

[Whatsthepoint]

Yeah i saw that but I guess they take their info from national statistics.

[Follower]

They just cut off hands and feet in Somalia following shariah- 4 young men I believe ages 18-25.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31492608

amputation is not an eye for an eye- replacing the goods would be

Reminds me of the story earlier in the year about the young boy that damaged someones eye in a fight- they were going to destroy the boys eye as punishment.

ok but if the henchman cuts off anothers hand, damages the eye then shouldn't that person the henchman have his hand cut off also? The henchman knows what he is doing and it is on purpose- the damage to the eye more then likely was not, but a silly school by fight.

Obviously I am against the death penalty!

[- Qatada -]

Punishment is supposed to deter a criminal from commiting crimes.

So yes, if someone takes anothers eye out, then its an eye for an eye, or paying compensation, or forgiveness from the one whose harmed.

If you think thats not fair, then if someone poked your eye out, or killed your family member purposelly, would u not want him to get punished equally? If no, then what gave him the right to do that so that he cant face the same punishment?
Besides that, everything has to be taken to court and if there is any room for doubt, then retaliation doesnt apply.

And children do not face any punishment. So that claim of yours is false.

About the guys you said got their hands and feet cut off, you never told what crime they comitted.

We know the punishments are harsh, and thats why they're there, to deter people from doing evil.

[ragdollcat1982]

I'm in the hopes u didnt take my post the wrong way, just something I found offensive from him.

Sadly too many people wish all religions would go away.

[ragdollcat1982]

If you think thats not fair, then if someone poked your eye out, or killed your family member purposelly, would u not want him to get punished equally? If no, then what gave him the right to do that so that he cant face the same punishment?

Nothing ever gives anyone the right to purposly harm another person. However God is the ultimate judge of all of us. It is He alone who will punish or reward us for our deeds. I certainly support locking up the most depraved members of society to protect us from them and depriving a human being of freedom is the worst temporal punishment he/she can recieve. I am against the death penalty or maiming or mutliating anyone as punishment for a crime. Besides if one makes haste to execute a criminal then it takes away that persons chance to repent of their past sins and come back to God. According the Bible nobody is beyond redemption and restoration to God. Look at Paul, he is the classic example to Christians of one who did terrible things and can be redeemed. Venegence is Gods according to Hebrews 10:30 and for me as a Chrisitan taking human life as punishment is only something that God can do.



Hebrews 10:30 (King James Version)

30For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.


10:30 (Arabic Life Application Bible)

30 فَنَحْنُ نَعْرِفُ مَنْ قَالَ: «لِيَ الانْتِقَامُ، أَنَا أُجَازِي، يَقُولُ الرَّبُّ!» وَأَيْضاً: «إِنَّ الرَّبَّ سَوْفَ يُحَاكِمُ شَعْبَهُ!»

[- Qatada -]

Nothing ever gives anyone the right to purposly harm another person. However God is the ultimate judge of all of us. It is He alone who will punish or reward us for our deeds. I certainly support locking up the most depraved members of society to protect us from them and depriving a human being of freedom is the worst temporal punishment he/she can recieve. I am against the death penalty or maiming or mutliating anyone as punishment for a crime. Besides if one makes haste to execute a criminal then it takes away that persons chance to repent of their past sins and come back to God. According the Bible nobody is beyond redemption and restoration to God. Look at Paul, he is the classic example to Christians of one who did terrible things and can be redeemed. Venegence is Gods according to Hebrews 10:30 and for me as a Chrisitan taking human life as punishment is only something that God can do.



Hebrews 10:30 (King James Version)

30For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.


10:30 (Arabic Life Application Bible)

30 فَنَحْنُ نَعْرِفُ مَنْ قَالَ: «لِيَ الانْتِقَامُ، أَنَا أُجَازِي، يَقُولُ الرَّبُّ!» وَأَيْضاً: «إِنَّ الرَّبَّ سَوْفَ يُحَاكِمُ شَعْبَهُ!»

God is Just, so He will judge between the people on the Day of Judgment.


However, since He has made made mankind His representatives on earth, then they will apply His laws on earth which He originally sent to His Messengers'.

If the law is applied upon a criminal - then his sin is expiated for, hence forgiven.

If the criminal repents before the crime reaches the judge or leader of state - then he can ask for forgiveness from the one he comitted the crime against - and he will not be punished if he is forgiven by the victim.

If however, the crime reaches the leader and the person is not forgiven by the victim - then the law will apply, to deter future criminals from doing any evil acts against humanity.



Peace.

[Follower]

My saying young may have been misleading- it was a school age boy-in his teens. That is young to me!!

What is the age of accountability? Is there a difference if the person is mentally disabled?

[Zafran]

My saying young may have been misleading- it was a school age boy-in his teens. That is young to me!!

What is the age of accountability? Is there a difference if the person is mentally disabled?

The age acountability is when the boy has developed the ability to distinquish between right from wrong or the ability to use reason.

Yes there is a difference in menatally disabled - they possibly wont be accounted for what they do.

In some cultres people Mature faster then other cultures.

[- Qatada -]

My saying young may have been misleading- it was a school age boy-in his teens. That is young to me!!

What is the age of accountability? Is there a difference if the person is mentally disabled?

Like brother Zafran said, the person who is mentally ill and has real mental disorders is not accountable or punished because he cant even understand what hes doing.

The accountability starts after puberty.

If you're christian, i'm surprised that you find this shocking, since this is the law in the Old testament.

[Follower]

I understand that Muslims take the Quran literally.

Much of the Holy Bible is to be taken literally and some to be figuratively. Is the punishment mentioned in the Old Testament to be taken literally? Or is it about equal compensation? Punishment must equal the crime, wealthy and poor are to be held accountable, etc.

A good article on the Old Testament laws- Scroll about 3/4 of the way down to get to information about the Old Testament Laws.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/...eye_law_o.html

[- Qatada -]

Punishment must equal the crime, wealthy and poor are to be held accountable, etc.

The same applies in Islamic law.

We believe God sent similar laws to Prophet Moses, Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon them) and the other Prophets of the children of Israel (aka Prophet Jacob/Ya'qub).

In regard to someone arguing that the law isnt applied literally, then we know that it was applied literally during the life of Moses himself. So that takes precedence over later theories or interpretations.