Lashing, stoning, mutilating: Islamic law is barbaric and outdated. Defend the case

[Al-Indunisiy]

by Abdullah Mohammed

ISLAM is the fastest growing religion in the world and yet it is the most misunderstood religion in the West. The popular demand for the application of Shari'ah the Islamic law- in various Muslim countries1 is another great 'threat' to secularism and it has aroused suspicion, anger, jealousy and hatred among the Western ruling elite who want to dissuade people from sympathising with Islam and to vilify anything connected with Islam.2 The theme of this essay involves some common misconceptions and false charges leveled against the Islamic law in general and its penal policy in particular. Many volumes have been written by Islamic scholars to rebut and refute these allegations, but in the course of this discussion I will try my best to restrict myself to the specific points raised in the rubric of this essay.

Insha-Allah, I will tackle the problem in four parts; a) issue of 'defending Islam' b) nature of 'Islamic law' c) issues of 'lashing, stoning and mutilating' and d) the question of whether the Islamic law is 'barbaric and outdated'. In the course of this essay I will discuss the role of the penal system in Islamic law and analyse some of the major punishments that are often highlighted and frowned upon by the West to show that Islamic law is all-embracing and progressive and that the Western objections of Islamic law, as outlined in the rubric of this essay, are baseless because they are neither based on objective perception of Islam in its totality nor are they constructive 'intellectual' criticisms, but rather they are based on hearsay and the West's preconceived notions and stereotype images of the so called Islamic law distorted in such a negative way so as to horrify the people and to make Islam seem ugly.

'Defend the case of Islam'

Before we tackle these objections and any such other objections against Islam, we must be very careful of our methodology. Islam is the religion of Allah and it needs no human defenses or justifications. No matter how we portray Islam, it will always remain a threat to the secular establishment. We should not be unnecessarily on the defensive and be 'apologetic' to justify to the West things that will be acceptable to them. This is especially relevant with the Islamic penal system which radically differs from all other Western and man-made legal systems- hence it attracts much hatred and jealousy.

We have seen the case of some Modernist Muslims who fell prey to the criticisms of the West and tried to explain away certain provisions of the Shari'ah to make it easily acceptable to Western standards, but without any success. The issue of the punishment for theft is a good illustration; Sir Syed Ahmad Khan not only believed that "Western prisons were vastly superior to any Islamic alternative" but he also argued that imprisonment is the most appropriate punishment for theft and other hudood offences because at the time of the revelation of the Qur'an, "there was no prison or isolated island for the criminals". Others argued that "in a truly Islamic society the chopping of a hand would not arise at all"6 or the "punishment of 'cutting off' the hand is only in cases of offenders involved in habitual theft or if the crime is very serious"7 or the cutting off the hand "will make the disabled thief a great burden for the people". And yet others have argued that the Qur'anic order "cut off their hands" (5:38) only means that the thief's hand should be injured9 or it means "prevent the thief from stealing" by creating such an economic atmosphere where everyone is well off to enjoy themselves.10

"All these are", according to Ashfaq Ahmad, "mere perversions of Islamic Jurisprudence, unproved by any precedence". Humans are fallible and their minds are limited and as believers, we must submit wholeheartedly to the will of Allah as He says "O those who believe! Enter into Islam completely" (2: 208) and He also tells us "it may happen that you may hate a thing which is in fact good for you and it may happen that you may love a thing which is in fact bad for you" (2: 216). So we should have trust and full confidence in the Lord of the Universe whose decrees are full of wisdom, mercy and blessings. Therefore "no apologies or excuses are needed to explain away or make acceptable to the West" things that have been so clearly stated in the Qur'an and the Sunnah and understood by the whole Ummah for the last fourteen centuries.

'Islamic law'

From the rubric of this essay, it seems to suggest that Islamic law is all about 'lashing, stoning and mutilating'. This is the picture of the Shari'ah that the West wants to portray, but it is far from the truth. Even the term Islamic law, judged by Western standards, could be a misnomer; "The Shari'ah is not merely a system of law, but a comprehensive code of behaviour that embraces both private and public activities" and "it has a wider application than any secular system of law since it claims to regulate all aspects of a man's life - his duties to God, to his neighbour and to himself".14

The Shari'ah encompasses and governs every sphere of human activity including the spiritual, moral, social, economic and political aspects of lifel5 and according to H.A.R. Gibb, it is "the most far-reaching and effective agent in moulding the social order and the community life of the Muslim people". It is the only perfect system of justice that could solve all of world's problems including the crime problem which is seriously affecting and worrying Western societies17 as it is something that "God in His (Infinite) Wisdom has ordained for the well being of all mankind". Islam denotes the complete submission to the will of Allah, which is only possible "if the Shari'ah is fully applied in its totality".19

The "Shari'ah is an integrated homogenous whole" and any of its specific provisions should be looked at within the overall context and not in isolation because "any arbitrary division of the scheme is bound to harm the 'spirit' as well as the structure of the Shari'ah"21. Hence the Islamic penal system, as this essay deals with, should be "viewed with the background of the whole Islamic system of life covering the economic, social, political and educational spheres of activity" and not in isolation as is often portrayed and distorted by the media and the politicians.

Role of Punishment in Islamic Law

Traditionally it is said that the Shari'ah is divided into five main branches-I'tiqadat (beliefs), 'ibadah (ritual worship), adaab (morals and manners), mu'amalat (transactions and contracts) and 'uqubat (punishments). The Shari'ah protects and defends life, property, honour, religion and intellect. 24 Hence the penal system is absolutely vital in guaranteeing these fundamental 'human rights,25 as it is "the defence system in any society" which "upholds the values and preserves the institutions of that society" otherwise "the entire fabric of society will crumble" as "it is on the proper and most effective administration of law that a society is moulded into what it should be". Therefore the Islamic penal system is just one of many branches of Shari'ah and it will be unfair for a critic, as it is done in the rubric of this essay, to single out some aspects of its penal policy in isolation to judge the merit or de-merit of the Islamic law without looking at the "context of its total scheme - its conceptual basis, primary objectives and goals and overall framework".3O

The concepts of crime and punishment in the Shari'ah were tailor made "to bring about the kind of society and moral order that the religion of Islam foresaw". In fact there are arguments to suggest that Islamic punishments are only applicable and enforceable in a just and proper Islamic state where the socio-economic and political systems are fully operating according to Shari'ah.32 There is a saying that "you can bend the necks but you can't change the hearts"- so punishment alone cannot ensure compliance with the law or solve the problem of crime.33 In an Islamic state, punishment follows a long series of prohibitory and reformatory steps where all efforts are made to engender attitudes of contempt for crime and eliminate all the root 'causes' of crime and to create a healthy crime-free environment.34 Even then punishment is not meted out for all breaches of the Shari'ah but only certain specifically defined crimes with strict conditions "because of their bearing upon...the establishment of peace and order".

It has been argued by many renowned jurists and criminologists that "it is an essential requirement for a 'viable' legal system to be inclusive of both fixed and variable elements in its penal postulates". Islam, being cognisant of human conditions, provides for this when it divides its penal penalties in three categories.

The first and most severe type of punishments are known as the hudood (singular haad) meaning a thing which restrains or prevents since a punishment "prevents a man from doing crimes". However, it is a strictly defined penalty which is mentioned in the Qur'an or the Hadith and it includes adultery, fornication, false imputation of unchastity (qadhf), drunkenness, armed robbery, sedition and apostasy, though there are some disagreements on whether one or two are technically described as 'hudood'.38 Because of "the decisive nature of haad, its severity and its exactness and its strictness in the rules of evidence", it has "considerably limited the severest penalties".

The second category of punishment, known as qisas (equitable retribution)4O, is inflicted for deliberate killing or wounding of a person. Unlike haad, the penalty could be waived by the victim or his heir in lieu of blood-money (diya), but for unintentional homicide or wounding there is no retribution and only compensation is paid. The Qur'an teaches that:

"And for you in equitable retribution there is Life, 0 people of understanding, that you may ward off evil" (2: 179)41.

The third category of punishment is known as ta'zeer (discretionary punishment) and it is "a sentence or punishment whose measure is not fixed by the Shari'ah" neither as to the offence nor the penalty. It helps to meet varying circumstances (e.g. if a definitional element is short in a haad offence) and the punishment that was generally inflicted in the past was whipping, though other alternatives such as a warning, fines and imprisonment could be given, but the quantum of punishment for ta'zeer is generally much below that of haad (e.g. ten lashes).

'Lashing'

The word 'lashing' has strong negative connotations and sounds like the vicious slashing and the more appropriate synonyms would be whipping and flogging. Among the hudood punishments, the offences of fornication, slander and drunkenness carry the penalty of flogging and it could also be prescribed for a number of ta'zeer offences. As the first two are' Sexual Offences', I shall deal with them under 'Stoning' because they are connected with adultery. Practically, for the Westerner, drunkenness is the most likely offence that invokes the penalty of flogging and so I will mention it in some detail.

The Qur'an strictly orders the believers to shun intoxicants as "it is the handiwork of Satan" (5:90) and it will 'divert' the believers from the "remembrance of Allah" (5:91) and the Hadith goes even further to condemn all acts associated with alcohol such as drinking, buying, selling, transporting and brewing. Drinking is rampant in Western societies even though "the greatest cause of 'violent' crime in the West is alcohol"43 Almighty Allah, in His Perfect Wisdom, has prohibited alcohol not only for its "evil effects on the body and the society, but also for their evil moral" consequences.

The Islamic penal policy is not to create opportunities for crime and then to punish the culprit, but it aims at eliminating the very root cause of crime. There is a saying "prevention is the best cure" and if we can eliminate alcohol from society, then we can eliminate or at least substantially reduce the rate of crime. That is why "in true Islamic societies there is virtually no drunkenness with its associated catalogue of crimes" such as homicide, physical assault, domestic violence, reckless driving, vandalism and rape. "Islam punishes before there is the chance for a serious crime to be committed" and thereby it stops public nuisance and safeguards people's lives, honour, intellect and property. Alcoholism is a widespread disease and no human solutions are apparent as a result of which even Westerners have admitted that "for recovering alcoholics, Islam is a more effective 'cure' than the Betty Ford clinic".

Lord Scarman, the well-known British judicial champion of civil liberties, writes that "it is important to a civilised system of justice to have humane values at all levels of its administration" and Islam provides for this. Flogging in Islamic law is "not just a savage beating inflicted capriciously according to the whims of brutal guards" but it is done "with control, in accord with justice and in the kindest possible way in the circumstances" to the extent that one English writer says that "the best comparison for Islamic flogging is the caning of children at school". Even the President of the International Court of Justice at the Hague in 1967 declared that "certain types of offences call for severe chastisement, and flogging in the case of such offences cannot be regarded as cruel, inhuman or degrading".51

During the time of the Holy Prophet (saw), drunkards were generally beaten with shoes but at the time of the second Khalifah Umar the punishment for drinking was fixed to 40 lashes or eighty lashes for the more mischievous drunkards. People are not given the haad punishment for drinking alcohol in their homes in privacy, but at least two witnesses are required to bear witness to the act of drinking and it has to be proven that it was consumed by a mature person voluntarily without any compulsion. A person is only punished with flogging if all the definitional elements of the crime are proven and it is attested by reliable evidence.

Even with respect to flogging at the time of sentencing, certain conditions and restrictions are imposed; the punishment should not be inflicted by vicious executioners and it should not be carried out in severe hot or cold weather. It is also prescribed that the whip be of medium size, the flogging is done with average intensity and it should not be inflicted on the naked body nor on the head, face and private parts and the whipping should not cause any wound and it should be distributed evenly in various parts of the body and not only on the same parts. Such is the humanity of punishment in Islam even when it prescribes 'deterrent' punishments for major offences such as fornication, slander and drunkenness!.

'Stoning'55

This is the most severe of all the punishments that exist in Islamic law and, just like the case of treason nowadays under English law56, it is extremely rare in practice as during the last fourteen centuries of Islamic history only "fourteen cases of stoning could hardly be numbered in all that time". Considering this extreme rarity, it is totally dishonest and unfair for a critic to single out stoning in order to judge not only the Islamic penal system but also the structure of the entire Islamic law in general as it is done in the rubric of this essay.

Islamic law aims to ensure the stability of society from its very base - the family - which is the 'nucleus' of society that breeds society's values and holds together the various institutions in society. "The family, is thus, the cradle of the individual and the cornerstone of society" In Islam, marriage is not only encouraged but also made obligatory to ensure the continuity of the family "in the interest of the preservation of the human race and the stability of human civilisation". Chastity is highly esteemed as a supreme virtue in Islamic societies, though it is not an ideal in the West where immorality is rampant and flirting has become the part and parcel of life.

In the West, the institution of marriage has significantly declined and nearly half of the marriages end up in divorce. The family has broken down resulting in much tension and the disintegration of other institutions in society and the rate of crime has steadily risen to epidemic proportion. The root 'cause' of all these is zina - the unlawful sexual union between a man and a woman who are not married to each other. Zina is the breach of the greatest 'trust' that a man and a woman can ever have and it leads to disastrous consequences such as breakdown of family ties, depression, domestic violence, child abuse, rape60 and "the AIDS epidemic as a result of promiscuous sexual activity in direct contravention of Divine law". That's why John Major's "Back to Basics" campaign is geared toward restoration of family values in order to reduce the crime rate and to maintain social order.

Zina is the most deadliest of all social crimes and "Islam puts an end to all those factors that 'allure' a man to zina or provide occasions for it" The Qur'an condemns zina not with the words "La Tazanu" (Do not commit adultery), as in the Pentateuch "Thou shall not commit adultery", but with the words "La Taqrabuz zina" (Do not go near adultery)...thus blocking all possible 'paths' leading to that act". That is why in Islamic societies, there is the segregation of the sexes and the Qur'an orders both men and' women to "lower their gaze" (24:30-1) and for women to wear the Hijab so that "they may be recognised and not molested" (33:59) as it is better for the purification of the hearts of both the sexes (33:53).

To eliminate the root cause of zina, Islam also takes other large scale precautionary and prohibitory measures such as developing God-consciousness, repugnance to sin and the belief in accountability, in every stage of education and it also encourages "early marriage and provides aid from the Public Treasury for those who wish to get married yet cannot afford to do so". Islamic societies, for this reason, will also not tolerate lures, mixed parties, *!*!*!*!ography and the like which is likely to arouse the passion and disturb family relations because after all, according to the Qur'an, "Man is created weak" (4:28). Islam also very strongly condemns false imputation of zina on another person (qadhf) as the Qur'an declares: "As for those who slander chaste women and produce not four reliable witnesses, then stripe them with eighty lashes and never accept their testimony thereafter" (24:4). Thus slander of this kind is dealt with severely as it seriously affects and damages self-confidence and strains family relations. Islam is never prepared to accept the kind of gossip that are so frequently found in the tabloid papers and the scandal - mongers are punished severely with eighty stripes.

Despite all the lawful channels provided, if a person transgresses the limits beyond all bounds of decency to commit zina in 'public', then Islam provides severe chastisement to safeguard the family and to save society from corruption and destruction and the punishment acts as a strong 'deterrent' to others. For fornication between unmarried couples the penalty is 100 lashes and for adultery between married couples the penalty is stoning to death (rajm). Even then the haad punishment is not prescribed for the mere commission of zina, but other definitional elements of the crime has to be satisfied; only that kind of adultery is punishable by stoning which is committed intentionally by a free person who is both mature and sane, the accused must be committed to a marriage and has had intercourse with his lawful spouse, the accused must have committed zina voluntarily without compulsion and the act of zina must be attested by four honest, reliable and trustworthy witnesses who must have all seen the act of penepration and all four witnesses must be 'unanimous' in every stage of the act including minute details (if statement of one witness is contradictory to the others, then all four witnesses will be given the haad punishment of 80 stripes for slander)

Such is the strict legal technicalities that has to be understood before the haad of stoning is carried out on adulterers and these facts are not highlighted by the West when condemning the punishments for zina. All the above mentioned conditions have to be met, before the haad is imposed which is very hard to do. Especially the question of witnesses is the most difficult aspect of all - the necessity of a minimum of four witnesses, as opposed to other haad offences where two are sufficient, who must be devout (the testimony of a fasiq, a person who lies or breaks any of the major prohibitions of Islam is inadmissible), the unanimous description of the act of penetration and other minute details by all four witnesses and the fear of receiving the haad penalty for slander on the part of witnesses greatly reduce the chance of conviction for the adulterers as the required evidence is "so strong and complete as to be practically impossible to obtain". That is why during the life of the prophet, "it was not possible to prove...one single case of adultery" 68 and "during 1400 years of the Muslim era only fourteen cases of adultery have been recorded" - hence "punishment by stoning has remained what it always was", harsh in principle, "but extremely rare in practice".

'Mutilating'

Mutilating means "to deprive a person of an organ of the body" and like 'lashing', it too has some negative connotations and I would prefer the alternative 'amputating'. In Islamic law, its application is only confined to the hudood punishments for armed robbery72 and theft73, except of course that it might be applicable to the retributory punishments of qisas. For all practical purposes, the punishment of 'cutting off' the hand is generally invoked for the offence of theft and so I will mention it in some detail.

In Britain, most of the recorded crimes involve theft and a burglary is committed every twenty four seconds.74 Property is something which people hold very dearly and often spend their whole lives in acquiring, and the Shari'ah seeks to protect the people's rightful ownership to property75 and thereby ensure the stability of family and reduce violence, vandalism and frustration. The punishment for theft in Islamic law must be seen in the context of the 'Social Security' system of the Islamic Welfare State.76

"Islam aims at creating a society in which none is compelled by the force of circumstances to steal". Rights and duties are reciprocal in Islam and "no duty is ever imposed on man without his being granted a corresponding right".

In an Islamic state, "every individual is entitled to social security collected from various sources ?including the obligatory collection of zakat" and "the basic needs of all citizens are adequately met" because according to a saying of the prophet, every son of Adam is entitled to food, clothing and shelter.81 "It is only after the state discharges its own duty that it can impose the penalty on a thief,82 who selfishly intrudes on the rights of others despite being provided with all the basic amenities of life. Hence "if a citizen is forced by circumstances (e.g. poverty)...the society will be considered at fault and no hadd punishment will be given to the accused".83 It was in this light that the second Khalifah Umar, who was well known for his "strict rigidity in enforcing the rules of Shari'ah"84, waived the cutting off the hand for theft during a period of famine.

Having looked at the socio-economic context of the amputation of hand for theft, it is also necessary to look at the 'legal' technicalities. A strong 'deterrent' punishment for theft is justified because "it is fear of consequences as world-wide human experience proves, that keeps in check the very natural tendency, almost inherent in human nature, to stealing and thieving". The punishment may appear to be harsh "to some hypersensitive Western reader7 who are swayed by false sentiments, but "the hand is cut off for the preservation of society" as the Gospels record Jesus as saying: "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better to enter life maimed than with two hands to go to hell" (Mark 9:43)89 However, under Islamic law, the type of theft (sariqah) that invokes the haad punishment is very restrictive in scope and is more akin to 'burglary,9O and unlike English law, it does not include pickpocketing, shoplifting, mugging, forgery and deception, obtaining pecuniary advantages without payment and handling stolen goods.

Even with that restrictive definition of theft, "all elements of the crime must be committed by one person"91 and all the definitional elements of theft must be there such as the following: 1) it is committed intentionally by a sane and mature person who is not driven by force of circumstances (e.g. poverty) 2) the property must lawfully belong to another and have some value, that the value of the stolen property reaches a minimum value of 3 or 10 dirhams92 and the property must have been taken from a sufficiently 'safe' place or proximity suitable for the safety of the object93 and 3) the act of stealing must be attested by at least two witnesses who physically saw the crime being committed. 94

By looking at the socio-economic and legal contexts of the amputation of hand for theft, the 'deterrent' nature of the punishment for theft could be better appreciated.95 In one sense, it could be said that the amputation of hand is the 'maximum' penalty for theft96 because all the definitional elements of the crime has to be satisfied and even when it is carried out it is done humanely and "amputation in an actual Islamic state with an Islamic penal system is (extremely) rare" in practice. Professor Muhammad Qutb writes that "punishment for theft has been executed only six times throughout a period of 400 years is a clear evidence that such punishment was primarily meant to prevent crime". As we do not have a proper Islamic state, the practices in some Muslim countries should be looked at with skepticism and put under strict legal scrutiny as "the cutting off of a hand for theft is applicable only within the context of an already existing, fully functioning 'social security' scheme"

'Islamic law is barbaric'?

The word barbaric was originally used by the Greeks for 'foreigners' to express the strange sound of their language. Later, this word was used to describe people who are 'uncivilised, primitive, rough, uneducated, brutal, cruel, blood-thirsty and merciless' as opposed to being 'advanced, civilised, cultured, humane and compassionate, It is true to say that not a single synonym of 'barbaric' is applicable to the Islamic penal system. On the contrary, humane values lie at the heart of the criminal justice system in Islam and all the antonyms of 'barbaric' are truly descriptive of the Shari'ah.

The object of punishment is not to relentlessly hunt down wrong-doers for retribution, but to see that peace, right and order are restored and this could be illustrated by the fact that the Islamic penal system almost wholly "lacks police, prisons and professional executioners". The hudood may appear to be harsh in the eyes of those who have been swayed by false sentiments, but human experience shows that if a punishment was to act as 'deterrent', then it has to be severe and exemplary. "Life cannot be safe if the habitual criminals are left unfinished" and it is better to be severe to one and save many than to be unnecessarily lenient and thereby destroy many and put the lives of millions of others at risk.

The deterrent punishments in Islam on the surface appears to be harsh, but it is only meant for "such incorrigible offenders who stand as real obstacles in the healthy growth of human society" and "in fact, it was a vital instrument in the dynamics of building a new social order"105 and it radically abolished and amended the pre-Islamic systems where inhumanity and vengeance was the order of the day. Prisons in Western societies are miserably failing its people and apart from being living hell, prison destabilises people and often has a "destructive effect on the personality" Home Office statistics in Britain shows that longer sentences do not prevent reconviction and in fact 50% males and 35% females get convicted within two years after coming out of prison. Hence "if the results do not tally with the main object, it means that the laws of punishments are quite imperfect" Thus, it is not true to say that prison is the more appropriate punishment for theft rather than the amputating of hand and if reducing the crime rate is the objective, then certainly the choice will be the Divine law - you just have to compare the crime statistics of Saudi Arabia and America and judge which one is better.

Sentences may appear to be severe in Islam, "but still more strict and severe are the 'procedures' laid down to be observed before a man may be convicted" and the Holy Prophet said: "Avoid the hudood as much as possible. Wherever there is even a mild chance, release him, for releasing by an error on the part of the judge is better than to punish anyone with error" (Tirmidi and Ibn Majah). Islam also teaches that "no bearer of a burden shall bear the burden of another" (6:164), it guarantees the accused immunity from 'malicious prosecution' (unlike in the UK) due to strict rules of evidence109, it strongly advocates the equality of all before the law110 and in the realm of qisas (equitable retribution) it teaches that "let him not exceed in the matter of taking life for he is aided" (17:33). Such is the humanity taught by Islam 1400 years ago!

We have dealt with the humane values that Islam stresses even at the time of sentencing. For example, in the case of flogging, several conditions and restrictions are imposed ranging from the type of stick to who inflicts the punishment to where it should hit! In actual practice, very "few haad punishments were prescribed". On the other hand, if we look at the inhuman atrocities of the West it is beyond count and Professor E.F.M. Durbin, after describing the inhuman and cruel treatment that has been inflicted by the 'progressive' countries of the West concluded by saying that "such large-scale brutality has rarely been witnessed, I am thankful to say, in the previous history of the World". Therefore, "Islam is a package deal which Muslims are bound to follow and if the progressive modern cultured societies can 'tolerate' mass killing indiscriminately with atom bombs, then certainly they can tolerate the amputation of the hands, flogging or stoning to death for certain 'heinous' crimes i.e. sacrifice of a few individuals for the sake of the society as a whole".

'Islamic law is outdated'?

Outdated means' old fashioned, obsolete and unfashionable' and it is applicable to something which is 'out of date', and to raise this objection against Islamic law doesn't make sense. The Shari'ah is a 'living law' today, as it was 1400 years ago, among the Muslim masses across the globe, though it may not be implemented in its totality. I think the critic is not trying to pinpoint any particular 'weaknesses' of Islamic law but is simply saying that the Shari'ah is too old and therefore we should forsake it for the latest modern trend.

There is nothing such as 'modernism' in Islam as Islam is forever modern, progressive and dynamic because human trends show that what is modern today becomes obsolete tomorrow. The Shari'ah emanates from Allah the All Wise who, being well aware of human conditions, has revealed a law (5:48) that is "perfectly universal and applicable to all nations"115 for all times. "It is not a system of law to be judged and evaluated as 'good' or 'bad' in accordance with the changing views of the population or the policies of the state" and therefore the Shari'ah is radically different from "the ordinary law in which the legislative authority is free to explain and comment on the law introduced by it which it can freely amend, cancel or withdraw".

If the aim of the law is to control unacceptable human behaviour and to reduce the rate of crime, then there has to be an element of permanence so that it may be easily recognised by the citizens who after all, are the ones who are bound to follow the law (English law teaches that 'ignorance of law is no defence'). But man-made laws change all the time according to changing "social attitudes" so much so that actions that were once regarded as 'detestable' and 'heinous' crimes (such as abortion, suicide, prostitution, homosexuality and adultery in England) are now regarded as 'legal' and normal under the same laws! Such is the nature of human laws which cannot fully comprehend human nature or predict the future and is constantly changing so much so that if I buy a law textbook today, it may not be valid for tomorrow." Islamic law, therefore, does not recognise the liberty of (human) legislation, for it would be incompatible with the ethical control of human actions and, ultimately, of society".119

That is why man-made laws have miserably failed and the rate of crime has reached epidemic proportion as Allah says that "it may happen that you hate a thing which is in fact 'good' for you and it may happen that you love a thing which is in fact 'bad' for you" (2:216).120 "Islamic law is at once static as well as dynamic" as a result of which it has attracted people of all nations over the last 1400 years and yet "kept the social fabric of Islam compact and secure through the ages" and "this law shall be as responsive to the urges of a progressive society in the present and the future as it has been in the past". So it's about time that the fallible Occidental homo sapiens change their 'fashionable' attitudes of contempt for Islamic law so that they may be assured of their spiritual and material well being and create an ordered crime free society based on justice.

Conclusion

The Shari'ah encompasses and governs every aspect of life and any of its specific provisions, including the penal system, must be seen in its totality where the moral, socio-economic, political and educational systems are in force and it must not be seen in isolation. If the penal system is only one of the branches of law, which is dependent on other institutions in society, then it is totally unfair to look at some of the rare punishments of Islam to judge the merit or de-merit of the whole legal system as it is done in the rubric of this essay.

The penal system is vital in enforcing social order and ensuring the stability of society. Unless 'deterrent' punishments are applied to curb the "incorrigible, hardened and habitual criminals committing most abominable atrocities" , then the very fabric of society will be torn. 125 Westerners never show the true role of punishments in the overall 'context' of a proper Islamic society, "rather they are shown as scattered, isolated, dissected parts, selected so as to appear absurd" and they "wrongly imagine that such punishments - like the European civil systems - will be inflicted every day". It must also be said that "the establishment of the true Islamic society is a 'condition' precedent to the infliction of hudood' (as rights and duties are reciprocal in Islam) and that no such Islamic state exists nowadays as "the legal systems prevailing in the Islamic world are almost entirely based on Western law".

As humans are 'social beings' susceptible to influences and conditioning, Islam aims at eliminating the root 'cause' of crime by creating a crime free environment and blocking all avenues by which crime may be committed13O It also wages a crusade against crime "by way of educating the masses" and appealing to the moral conscience and these factors are much important in reducing the crime rate than any 'material' sanctions. "The 'moral habit' engendered by the Shari'ah is a powerful factor making not only for individual righteousness but also for effective social co-operation and cultural progress" lt is due to the absence of this in Western societies that has led researchers into the effectiveness of punishments to "the conclusion that nothing works" because there is a saying "you can bend the necks but you can't change the hearts".

The alleged severity of the Islamic punishments is not really what the West is concerned about, but the 'moral values' of Islam as "they do not think that crimes like drunkenness and adultery deserve even a word of reproach" let alone prescribing exemplary punishments for these offences. A system which the West always attack and belittle is loved by millions of people across the globe and "this popularity (for the implementation of hudood) is what really horrifies the West" - when it suits them, the West is even prepared to denounce their well-cherished concept of 'Democracy'. According to Professor Qutb, the 'real' reason "Europeans are afraid of the application of the rules of Islam" is because they themselves are "criminal in nature and persist in committing crimes which lack all justification" .

Islam never prescribes punishment haphazardly nor does it execute these without due consideration" and the few hudood punishments inflicted for the most serious offences have very strict 'definitional elements' which makes its application very rare in practice and yet it has been instrumental in the past and at present in greatly reducing the problem of crime which is seriously affecting Western societies. Therefore, the allegations made in the rubric of this essay about the Islamic law are totally 'baseless' and reflects the West's narrow mindedness and blind vision to the reality of Islam that is sweeping across Europe and it is determined to retain its stereotype images of the Islamic law from its colonial past as an 'ideological weapon' in the crusade against Islam.

[Al-Indunisiy]

notes:

1"It is a common demand of all the Muslims to implement Islamic laws in their states" [Moinuddm Qadri p.140]. The 'International Seminar on the Application of Shari'ah' which was held in Islamabad in 1979 and attended by prominent scholars, jurists and officials from across the Muslim world unanimously resolved that "the solution to all our problems can be found in the application of Islamic Shari'ah" and it urged all Muslim states to enforce the Shari'ah [Hamdard Islamicus- Winter 1979 p.98]. Since then, the governments of Pakistan, Iran and Sudan introduced the hudood, though partially and often inadequately, in their respective countries due to popular demand and public pressure.

2"This popularity is what really horrifies the West" [Haroon p.14] and "the West takes any move to re-introduce the Islamic Penal System as a crucial step in the challenge to the West" (pp.13-14).

6 Malek p. I 8. The same author also argues quite mistakenly that "any such crime must be forgiven if one admits guilt and asks for forgiveness" (p.18). See Tafheemul Qur'an on verse 5:39 for proper interpretation of this verse.

7 Mohajir p.48. The author derived his ideas, almost verbatim, from Maulvi Muhammad Ali's commentary on the Qur'an. The latter translates the Qur'anic word for thief- Sariq- as "one addicted to theft" (p.253) and he also believes that the normal punishment for theft is imprisonment (p.252).

9 Thaaqib p.3. This is also the view of Hafiz M. Sarwar Quraishi (Ameer of Jama'at al Islamiyyah of Kohat, Pakistan- Est. 1936) who argues in his recently published booklet on this issue (1990) that the "hand of a thief should not be cut off from the wrist, but is only to be 'wounded' enough to leave a permanent scar" (p.38) by scraping some flesh preferably from the three middle fingers so as to act as a 'deterrent' (p.39).

10 View of Dr Syed Abdul Wadud and his Tulu-e-Islami in Pakistan [Thaaqib p.3]. Jullundri in his extremely awkward and self opinionated "The true translation of the glorious holy Qur'an" argues that the Qur'anic command "cut off their hands" means "cut off his advantages" by putting him in prison (p.385) and he also argues that only wealth, and not the hand, should be taken away in retribution.

14 The Oxford companion to Law p.650. Hence there is no distinction between the secular and the sacred in Islam and it does not recognise the Biblical maxim "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and render unto God the things that are God's" [Mark 12:17}.

15 The Shari'ah governs the individual as well as the collective life of the people that includes "religious rituals, personal character, morals, habits, family relationships, social and economic affairs, administeration, rights and duties of citizens, judicial system, laws of war and peace and International Relations" [Mawdudi: Islamic Law p.I7].

17 In a tiny island like Britain "6 million serious crimes are committed every year" [Haroon p.7l], a crime is committed every six seconds [Khilafah- Feb'92], one third of men have a criminal 'conviction' for a major offence by the age of 30 [Trends- Vol.5 Issue 2] and in 1994 violent crimes rose by 19% [Explicit- Sept '94] while "the crime rates in many other countries have risen faster than the population" [Encyclopaedia Bntannica Vo1.J6 p.820]. "Islam has the key to dealing with the crime wave" [Haroon p.88]- in Saudi Arabia in 1976 "the rate of theft and rape crimes Was only 0.07% as compared to 47% in the USA" [Wassel p.60] and since then "crime rate in Saudi Arabia has progressively been decreasing" [Masoodi p. 746]. The Interior Minister of Saudi Arabia said that deterrent punishments for criminals, by following the Shari'ah, is the main reason for the apparent low rate of crimes in the kingdom [Al-Furqan- Aug'88 p. 3]

19 Mumtaz Ali p.67. The Qur'an rebukes the Children of Israel by saying "would you believe in part of the book and neglect the rest" [2:85] and it tells us "O those who believe! Enter into Islam completely and do not follow the footsteps of the satan, for he is an open enemy to you" [2:208]. The Qur'an also strongly warns the Muslims by saying that "those who do not rule by what Allah has revealed are transgressors... tyrants...unbelievers "[5:44-7]. See also the following verses of the Qur'an - 4:65/33:36/4:59/8:1 and 5:50

21 Mawdudi: Islamic Law p.18. Using the analogy from a Hadith on Islamic brotherhood, the author demonstrates that the Shari'ah could be compared to the human body- no organ can function effectively without support of the other parts and if one organ is severed, it is likely to affect the rest of the body. Similarly specific provisions of the Shari'ah, such as the hudood, should be seen as a whole and not in isolation.

24 Imam Ghazzali: AI Mustasfa Vol.2 p.66- quoted by Gilani p.365. According to 'Izz Abdus Salam al SuI ami in his 'Qawaid al Ahkam', the key principle ofIslamic Law is "preventing harm to people and bringing welfare to them" (daf' darar an al nas wa Jalb manfa 'ah lahum) [Fazlur Rahman p.246].

25 For example, Qisas protects life and the hudoods of theft and slander defends property and honour respectively [Maydani pp.226- 7].

30 Murad p.10. Out of a total of 6683 verses in the Qur'an, "it contains no more than 500 of them concerning 'legal' matters, of which, some 80 are 'legislative' in the strict sense of the term" [Vijapur p.33] and surprisingly, the Qur'an only refers to five 'penal' sanctions [Kamali p.30]. Therefore in Islamic Law, "the list of prohibitions far more outweighs the list of punishments" [Sherwam p.29].

32 Iqbal Siddiqi p.29, Safuat p.162 and Awa p. 138. There are over fifty independent Muslim countries, but "no country is governed exclusively by Islamic Law" [Walker p.65l] and "the larger issues in the areas of socio-economic and constitutional supremacy of Shari'ah does not seem to attract these countries" [Tanzilur Rahman p.l6] as "the legal systems prevailing in the Islamic world are almost entirely based on Western law" [Peters p.246] which were adopted during the last 150 years. Hence "we do not have in the world an Islamic penal system which would be accepted as genuine. Rather we have attempts to recreate the Islamic penal system" [Haroon p.1l]. However, Saudi Arabia appears to be the best living example of the application of hudood in the modem world, though "the 'spirit' of the Shari'ah has long since disappeared and the whole of Shari'ah too is not being enforced" [Mawdudi: Islamic Law p.4].

33 This could be illustrated by the issue of drinking which is rampant in Western societies and is the main 'cause' of all violent crimes. Seeing its detrimental effects, some US states banned alcohol in the 1930's with the might of their laws, policing and the courts and yet it drastically failed and the ban had to be lifted. But in a similar society where drinking was part and parcel of life, the Arabian Prophet (pbuh), through Divine guidance and moral education, managed to wipe out alcoholism altogether along with all its related crimes so much so that history records that the streets of Medina were flowing with wine on the day when the final prohibition of drinking was revealed [Qur'an 5:90 "O those who believe! Surely intoxicants and gambling are the handiworks of satan- so shun 11 that you may be truly successful"]. Such was the power and effect of Faith!

34 Punishment alone is not enough to solve social problems and guarantee stability in society. You need to educate the people and 'condition' them in the right environment as the Qur'an teaches "We do not punish any nation unless we send unto them a Messenger (as warner)" [17:51]. In Islamic Law, sanctions are not only material but also spiritual.- God consciousness, and the belief in accountability for Sins on the Day of Judgement greatly helps in the prevention of crime and in fact, they are more important than any 'material' considerations as most crimes are 'opportunistic' by nature [Hamidullah p.125 n.312/ Maqsood p.137]. The Holy Prophet (pbuh) warned the Muslims by saying: "when an adulterer?drunkard?thief etc. commits its respective offence, then he is not a 'believer' at the time of doing it " [Sahih al Bukhari Vol.8 p.504].

38 Haroon p.29. For the sake of brevity, I have just used the word slander for false imputation of unchastity elsewhere in this essay.

40 To translate Qisas as "retaliation' is incorrect according to Yusuf Ali and Asad because "Retaliation in English has a wider meaning, equivalent almost to 'returning evil for evil', and would more fitly apply to the blood feuds of the Days of Ignorance" [Yusuf Ali: The Holy Qur'an 2: 178 p. 70]. See also Asad's commentary on the same verse.

41 "The object of taking only 'one' life (that of the murderer) in retaliation of another life (that of the murdered) was, as indicated by the Ayah itself, to 'ward off evil' and to protect the community from continued vengeance" (like the custom of Jahiliyyah) [Sherwani p.43].

43 Haroon p.60. One fifth of all hospital beds are occupied by drunkards and some time ago a detailed study of London's Wandsworth Prison revealed that 95% of the 1600 inmates admitted that their crimes were committed as a result of too much drinking.

51 ZafTulla Khan p.74. Amnesty International, in its attempt to belittle and curb the rising tide of Islamic awakening by using the human emotion, circulated a document in January 1995 where it stated that "flogging constitutes a cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment" contrary to Article 5 of the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' (1948). Where is Amnesty when human rights are grossly violated in Bosnia, Kashmir, Palestine, Chechniya, Philippines and numerous other places of the world or do they have a 'double standard' policy?

55 It must be said at the outset that due to the severity of this penalty and its outright condemnation by the West, some modernist Muslims have rejected the punishment of stoning (rajm) and followed the footsteps of the Khawarij and some of the Mu'tazilites in the past to argue that the Qur'an only prescribes 100 lashes [24:2] and not stoning for Zina. The Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan in 198 I by a majority vote even went as far as to declare that the punishment of stoning for adultery was un-Islamic [Jahangir pp.25-6] !.However, this is only half truth as Zina includes both adultery and fornication. In accordance with the saying of the Holy Prophet (who is the recipient and 'expounder' of the Qur'an as mentioned in 16:44), the Qur'anic punishment applies to the offence of fornication and the punishment for adultery is which he himself implemented during his own lifetime as recorded in history.

56 The death penalty, which really horrifies the British, is still the penalty reserved for treason since the Treason Act 1351- the oldest serving statute prescribing death in England. In 1965, the death penalty for murder was abolished and the same penalty for arson was applied upto 1970. However, the death penalty is still widespread in many 'progressive' countries of the world including the West (eg. in 1986 1700 prisoners were on the 'death row' in several states ofthe USA) [Encyclopedia Britannica Vol. 16 pp.812-3].

60 According to 1992 statistics prepared by the University of Blumington, a forcible rape is committed every six minutes in the USA, and in Britain 'sexual crimes' have now risen by 15% [Explicit- Sept '94 p.8].

68 Doi p.245. All the cases of adultery were proven by voluntary its

72 The hand and the foot are cut off from alternate sides [Ansari Vol. 2 p.388- derived from verse 5:33 of the Qur'an].

73 The right hand is cut off from the wrist in accordance with verse 5:38 of the Qur'an. Further details are provided in the Ahadith.

74 Trends Vol.5 Issue 2 p.10. In America, a property crime is committed every 3 seconds, a larceny theft every 4 seconds and a burglary every 10 seconds [1992 figures from the University of Blummgton].

75 This does not mean that the acquisition of wealth is unrestricted. In fact, Islam only allows the acquisition of wealth through 'lawful' means [4:29], it condemns hoarding [9:34], it imposes the mandatory annual Zakat of 2.5% on one's savings and it encourages charity because "in their wealth is a 'right' for the beggar and the deprived" [51 :20].

76 Islam introduced the Welfare State 1400 years ago while it was introduced in Britain relatively recently after World War II. The system of zakat is a "compulsory payment out of annual savings of the relatively well off for the preservation, development and stability of Islamic Society" [Zaman p.5] and it represents the 'right' to Social Security for the poor and needy. "If Zakat is properly implemented, poverty is bound to disappear" (p.8) and during the time of the Umayyad Khalifah Umar b. Abdul Aziz, poverty was totally wiped out of the Islamic State [M. Qutb p.132]. But this needs sincere commitment and deep integrity on the part of our leaders.

81 "The Son of Adam has no better right than that he would have a house wherein he may live, a piece of clothing whereby he may hide his nakedness and a piece of bread and some water"[Tirmizi].

84 Prof M. Qutb pp. 131-2. Umar is described in the Hadith as the "most stern in the execution of the orders of Allah" (ashaddufee amrillah)

89 "If thy hand or thy feet offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee" [Matthew 27:38-see also 28:8].

91 Peters p.251. If two persons 'jointly' steal an object, there is no amputation of hands.

92 According to a Hadith in Sahih al Bukhari (Vol. 8 p. 514), the minimum value (nisab) for theft is one fourth of a Dinar or three Dirhams. This is the legal opinions of Imams Malik, Shafei & Ahmad, but according to Imam Abu Hanifa, the minimum value is 10 Dirhams [Shamsul Haqq Azimabadi: Awn alMa'bud VolA pp.235-6- quoted by Hasan in 'Sunan Abu Dawud'].

93 If X sells Y's jewellery which the latter left on the table in his house, there is no hadd as the jewellery was put on the table which is not a safe place for such valuables [Peters p.251]. Similarly, "if a thief entered a house and took some property, but was caught before taking it out of the house, he cannot be punished by Hadd, but only by Ta'zeer" [Sajivat p.161].

94 See Peters pp.250-1, Safwat p.155, Klein p.222. The Hadd is also not applicable if "the thief returns the stolen object before an application for 'prosecution' has been made" [Safwat p.155].

95 The punishment for theft in Islam is much more practical and lenient than many other legal systems. For example, under Jewish Law the punishment for theft was death [Exodus 22:2/ Deuteremony 24: 7] and thieves used to be crucified at the time of Jesus [Matthew 27:38]. Even in English Law, "theft of property worth more than a shilling was classified as 'felony' and, like every other felony, was punished with death, upto as late as 1861" [Zajrulla Khan p. 75].

96 Iqbal Siddiqi pp.27-8/ AH. Siddiqui: Sahih Muslim Vol.3 p.907. By 'maxium' penalty, I mean to say that all the definitional elements of the crime must be met before the full Hadd punishment of theft (i.e. cutting off the hand) is given. Hence I do not endorse the un-Islamic standpoint of some Modernists who believe that cutting off the hand should be the last resort for theft and ordinarily the punishment should be imprisonment [see footnote 7].

105 Sherwani p.67. One should look at the effects and not just the punishment per se and due consideration should be given to the feelings of the victim.

109 Haroon p.22. The Qur'an says "Let not the enmity of any people prevent you from doing justice to them" [5:8].

In England, the overwhelming majority of criminal prosecutions are iniated by the Police in the name of the Crown and they "assemble the evidence, control the content, select, authenticate and validate it" [McConvolle & Baldwin: Courts, Prosecution and Conviction, 1981, pp. 89-90]. Due to the adversial nature of the English Criminal Justice Sustem, the Police often abuse and exploit their power and discretion in circumventing evidence in order to obtain results favourable to their cause. The Royal Commission on the Police (1962) found that "police officers occasionally colour, exaggerate, or even fabricate the evidence against an accused person" and recent examples of such 'Miscarriages of Justice' include the case of the Guildhall Four '89 and the Birmingham Six '91.

110 Aisha reports that a prominent woman named Fatima b. Qais from the Makhzumite tribe was caught red handed for theft and members of her family sought intercession of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) through one of the prophet's companions whereupon he said: "The people before you were destroyed because they used to inflict the legal punishments on the poor and forgive the rich. By Him in whose Hand is my soul Even if Fatima the daughter of Muhammad were to commit theft, I would certainly cut off her hand" [Bukhari Vol.8 pp.512-3/ Muslim Vol.3 p.910/ Abu Dawud Vol.3 p.1218]. This 'equality of all before the law' could be demonstrated by several incidents from the Rightly Guided Khulafah such as the case of Abu Shahma, the son of Khalifah Umar, who died as a result of flogging after he was convicted of fornication or drinking even though the public had pity for him and demanded that he be let off the hook but the Khalifah rigidly applied the Qur'anic maxim "and let not the pity for them prevent you from executing the order of Allah if you truly believe in Allah and the Last Day and let a party of believers witness the event" 24:2 [Shah Wabullah: 1zalatul Khifa p.151- quoted by Sarwar p.l6. See also Sherwam p.67].

115 Mashriqi p.2. "He who has created the Universe and Man, and He made Man obedient to the laws which also governs the Universe, has also prescribed a Shari'ah for his voluntary actions. If Man follows the Law, then his life is in harmony with his own nature" [Sayyid Qutb: Milestones p.J64].

119 Muslehuddin p.3.

"For the many peoples who constitute the world of Islam, the Divinely ordained Shari'ah represents the standard of uniformity as against the variety of legal systems which would be the inevitable result if law were the product of human reason based upon the local circumstances and the particular needs ofa given community" [Coulson: A history of Islamic Law p.5].

120 "The Western Penal System is no deterrent for crime, nor can any 'worldly' government minimise or even just contain the spiralling crime rate" [The Majlis Vol.11 No.9- Mar '95 p.4]. The inherent deficiency of the English Law, for example, could be seen by the fact that the Criminal Justice System gives protection to the culprit and jeopardises the life of the victim and puts the lives of millions others at risk by I) imposing lenient sentence on the culprit where there is great likelihood that he will soon re-offend and ii) the victim is made to support and maintain the culprit in prison by paying tax money.

125 "Punishments are necessary to I) uphold law and order and ii) should inculcate respect for law in society and, above all iii) they should deter political delinquents from undertaking criminal activities" [Masoodi p. 747].

130 "Islam tries in the first place to 'purify' society from circumstances that may lead to crime. After taking such precaution Islam prescribes a preventative and Just punishment which may be inflicted upon persons who have no reasonable justification for their crimes" [M. Qutb p.132].

[Al-Indunisiy]

I found this in another forum that I frequent. It's a bit old, I thought it would be of some good to copy it here.http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27668

[Rhubarb Tart]

Do you blame a non Muslim having these views? no... I don’t blame them at all. Just look at these so called Muslim countries and their version of Sharia law.

Also I think it is unfair to compare the west (particularly the UK) that has carried out detail research on state of their societies to Middle East, other Muslim countries were research is largely avoided and when carried out lacks detail or the Shariah law which isn’t properly practiced in any countries today. Also, not taking into account of other factors that prevent marriage "breakdown" from harsh courts that do not give girls right to divorce even if most cases it is legitimate to honour killings.

And even if we were to have the perfect Sharia law, it would still be abused. Any three members of the community can say a woman or man has committed adultery and they saw it because they think this particular person is loose or “immoral”. That is it, done, finished the person actually get punished over something he/she hasn’t done! And this is not even a joke; there are communities that would jump at the chance of accusing someone of any of the crimes mentioned above.

I read in women in Islam website that Sharia law would stop honour killings. Yet the writers seem to forget that honour killings are often carried by male relatives with family approve. If the Sharia law was in place, all of the family wouldn’t mind jumping at the chance of accusing hated female or even male relative of any of crimes mentioned above particularly adultery.

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

[aadil77]

Do you blame a non Muslim having these views? no... I don’t blame them at all. Just look at these so called Muslim countries and their version of Sharia law.

Yep I think we should blame our selves before blaiming others, many of the ummahs problems today are our own fault

Its not just about other muslim countries and their version of islamic law, its the fact that we are so weak that we get bootlicking muslims in this ummah who instead of explaining islam and defending it - will instead change our laws to suit the kuffar

Regarding islamic law being abused, I doubt it, people lying in testomony are basically signing their souls off to Hell

[Rhubarb Tart]

any law can be abused. People in Western countries get provincial study loan and before the application date, they take all the money out of their accounts to show that they have 0 balance. It is an abuse of law. Westerners are not free from it.

Are you a Muslim btw?

Lying about such crimes does not lead to death. Lying about crimes that result in lashing, stonning and mutilating is serious.

[Rhubarb Tart]

Yep I think we should blame our selves before blaiming others, many of the ummahs problems today are our own fault

Its not just about other muslim countries and their version of islamic law, its the fact that we are so weak that we get bootlicking muslims in this ummah who instead of explaining islam and defending it - will instead change our laws to suit the kuffar

Regarding islamic law being abused, I doubt it, people lying in testomony are basically signing their souls off to Hell

You doubt it? You reckon Muslim families wouldn’t dare to use such laws to save their so called honour? Aint you Pakistani? Are you telling me, narrow minded Pakistani parents (not all) so desperate for their daughter to stay with her husband for reason like honour but can’t stop her, wouldn’t dare to end their daughter life using the Sharia law?
Pakistani even has leniency law to scum that kill their daughter, sister, mother and wives as well as male relative sometimes for reason like honour. Currently the west or groups in Pakistani want to change the law, are you against that?

[Rhubarb Tart]

Lying is lying, regardless of the outcome. I dont judge the credibility of lying based on the outcome of it, which it seems you do. Reorient your moral compass.

Lying is lying, but there is HUGE differences between lying about money to lying about someone committing adultery that lead to someone death. Obviously you think money is on the same scale as someone life.

[Rhubarb Tart]

Which law are you talking about? Have you read the Pakistani constitution? This is an Islam forum, not a Pakistani hate group. Speak with knowledge or do not speak at all.

No not a pakistani hater at all. And there is a Leniency law, and if you did not know it, shows how much you know about your own country. Pakistan is not the only country with such law, the following countries also have the same if not similar law, UK, Yemen, Saudi, Jordan, USA, syria, Iraq, Iran, and palestine...these are the countries I know and can think of having such law. But apart from USA and UK, the rest of the countries use this law a lot.

Don’t get angry at me....

[Rhubarb Tart]

I think lying in case of stealing money is as bad in lying where someone loses life. What criteria are you using to say that death is worse than stealing? Arbitrary moral criteria of your self? There are 5 billion humans in this world and each of them have their own morality. It is hence more convenient to not create gradations in the nature of lying as in lying to steal money is "less bad" than lying to kill someone. There is not scientific evidence to support that.

Really... what world do you live in? Lying about adultery that leads to the person death is appalling and much worse to anyone with a brain and is much worse when you do it to a close relative.

[Rhubarb Tart]

How did you assume Pakistan is my country by saying "about your own country?" That shows the bias running in your mind's neurons. Just because I spoke against your anti-Pakistani hate speech, you assumed I am doing that because I am a Pakistani.

whatever, you think I hate Pakistanis fine by me, not going to cry about it. I only mentioned the country as Abdi is from that country and would know his own country and his own people. If Abdi was from Yemen I would have said the same thing. And that reply wasnt to you, maybe you are abdi hiding behind a fake profile? Unless you are abdi, I suggest you shut it.

[Rhubarb Tart]

Anyone with a brain would realize that lying is morally bad, whether it leads to death or whether it leads to no punishment because the liar does not get caught! Just like how cheating on school exams is bad whether the cheater is caught or not. We cannot say that a lie which leads to one's death is "worse" than a lie which leads to no pain.

Of course lying is morally bad.
But the one that lies about adultery in society where one would be punished by death and know the full consequences of their action is beyond just “morally bad”. That person is sick and evil period.

[Ummu Sufyaan]

surprise surprise another controversial thread by al-indunisy.

what exactly needs clarifying?

[aadil77]

You doubt it? You reckon Muslim families wouldn’t dare to use such laws to save their so called honour? Aint you Pakistani? Are you telling me, narrow minded Pakistani parents (not all) so desperate for their daughter to stay with her husband for reason like honour but can’t stop her, wouldn’t dare to end their daughter life using the Sharia law?
Pakistani even has leniency law to scum that kill their daughter, sister, mother and wives as well as male relative sometimes for reason like honour. Currently the west or groups in Pakistani want to change the law, are you against that?

I don't know about pakistani law and I don't care about tbh, all I know is its not islamic law - don't know why you brought pakistan in to this

People who have no fear of Allah may lie in testimony in an adultry case, but you're basically signing yourself off to hell because the accused person will loose their life, its not the same as someone getting imprisoned or fined - cause in that case the person is still alive and may still choose to forgive you in future

[Al-Indunisiy]

surprise surprise another controversial thread by al-indunisy.

what exactly needs clarifying?

Nothing. The article its self is a clarification. What the title means is that it's a defence of the case against the accusation: barbaric and outdated. I read it first in turntoislam.com/forum months ago, is an exhaustive enough exposition.

[13th Yarba]

massive subject and i don't feel qualified to comment except to say any miscarriage of justice that might occur effectivley compromises the law, but just by coincidence i stumbled across this article on MSN today with the attention grabbing headline 'Gory Truth About Stoning', i am unable to include links but i have copied and pasted here to add to the debate, if you would like to read the original article simply google 'the gory truth about stoning'

The Gory Truth About Stoning

News that Iran has suspended the stoning of a 43-year-old mother of two, Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, for the crime of adultery certainly came as a relief. But the case has once again focused international attention on a barbaric and draconian form of punishment that, in some Muslim states, has become an effective and horrific tool of misogyny.

Stoning is a brutally precise punishment with a host of specific procedures and regulations. The convicted person is wrapped in a shroud, placed into a pit, and buried either to the waist if a man or the chest if a woman. If the adultery was proven in court by confession, the judge has the responsibility of throwing the first stone. But if the case was proven through witnesses, they start first, followed by the judge, and then by any others who are present, the number of which cannot be less than three. The stones are then hurled one by one until the accused is killed. And if the person manages to wriggle out of the pit, she or he is set free (which explains why these pits are so often little more than loosely packed holes in the ground).

The punishment for adultery in the Quran is lashes, not stoning. In fact, nowhere in the whole of the Quran is stoning prescribed for any crime.

The Iranian Penal Code is chillingly explicit regarding the proper stones to use. Section 119 states: "The stones for stoning to death shall not be so big that one or two of them shall kill the convict, nor shall they be so small that they may not be called 'stones.'"

Islamic law considers adultery, or zina, to be one of six Quran-mandated offenses whose punishment is prescribed by God (the other five are false accusations of adultery, theft, robbery with violence, apostasy, and drunkenness). These are essentially a random collection of crimes whose only connection is that their punishment is mentioned somewhere in the Quran. Consequently, these "crimes" receive special treatment in Islamic law.

But the punishment for adultery in the Quran is lashes, not stoning. In fact, nowhere in the whole of the Quran is stoning prescribed for any crime--though this is a point of endless debate for legal and religious scholars.

Although zina literally means adultery, in practice it refers to any unlawful sexual act, whether adultery (illicit sex between married persons), fornication (sex between unmarried persons), sodomy, rape, or incest. However, even the simplest definition of zina can become hopelessly entangled in the complexities of Muslim sexual ethics. For instance, some legal scholars suggest that zina should not be applied in instances in which a married person is unable to enjoy his or her spouse due to legally acceptable conditions, such as prolonged travel or life imprisonment. Then there is the problematic relationship between adultery and rape in some Islamic penal codes. Rape victims can themselves be charged with adultery if they are unable to definitively prove sexual coercion. Indeed, there have been some cases in which the victims of rape, rather than the rapists, are convicted of zina and stoned to death for adultery.

Adding to all of this confusion is the fact it is nearly impossible to legally convict someone of zina in Islamic law. Without exception, zina must be proven in a court of law either by four clear and unambiguous confessions made in four separate meetings with a qualified judge, or by the attestation of four men of "blameless integrity" who must all profess to be direct eyewitnesses to the crime. (If four men are not available, three men and two women will suffice.) Where one finds four blameless men who happen to have simultaneously witnessed the very private act of sexual intercourse between two people is another matter.

It is for this reason that even those countries that still have stoning in their penal codes go to such lengths to work around the punishment. After Zia al-Haq instituted the Islamic Penal Code in Pakistan, over 95 percent of adultery convictions between 1980 and 1987 were overturned on legal technicalities. In Iran--a country that, to this day, applies a strict interpretation of Islamic law--a temporary moratorium was placed on the practice of stoning a decade ago, due in part to a vigorous debate in the courts over the legality of the punishment.

Nevertheless, despite its illegitimacy as a Quran-mandated punishment and regardless of the many legal impediments embedded in Islamic law to deter its use--especially when the accuser himself can be punished if the accused is found innocent--the practice of stoning adulterers continues in a number of conservative Muslim countries. The vast majority of these stoning cases are undocumented because they occur in the most rural, poorest, and least-educated regions of the countries (though often with the tacit approval of the government).

Consequently, those like Ms. Ashtiani, who have been charged and "tried" by their village elders, are often totally unaware of their rights under Islamic law; indeed, the judges themselves are sometimes ignorant of the complexities of the law and the burden of proof required for conviction. Too often, this ignorance allows the zeal of the community to dictate guilt or innocence, which is why zina laws are so often used as a means of exploiting women (men are rarely convicted of adultery even though the crime, by definition, requires two people to commit). Jealous husbands have used the zina laws to punish their wives, while angry fathers have used the laws to castigate their daughters.

And while global support and outrage seems to have stopped the Iranian government from stoning the mother of two to death this time, there are too many women who can't garner that sort of attention. Women you will probably never hear about until it is too late.

[Zafran]

salaam

what happend to the guys that commited adultery??? we just know about the women.

[Al-Indunisiy]

salaam

what happend to the guys that commited adultery??? we just know about the women.

Funny enough, someone from the other forum I frequent wondered the exact same thing.
His wondering was answered as so:

good observation.
i think that's because of the media and male centric society in the muslim world. It's considered ok for a man to have extra martial relationship whereas for a woman it is a matter of honor.
Even on many Islamic sites it bothers me to see scholars keep telling women to be patient when they discuss serious wrongdoing on part of their husband.

thing is you gotta all a spade a spade no matter what.

[Rhubarb Tart]

I don't know about pakistani law and I don't care about tbh, all I know is its not islamic law - don't know why you brought pakistan in to this

People who have no fear of Allah may lie in testimony in an adultry case, but you're basically signing yourself off to hell because the accused person will loose their life, its not the same as someone getting imprisoned or fined - cause in that case the person is still alive and may still choose to forgive you in future

Salam

Sorry forgot about this thread..

I know they are signing themselves to hell but that will not prevent the consequences of their actions. I brought pakistan as example of a country that has leniency laws towards those that commit honour killings which is commonly used. I used this example because you said you doubt it, so what makes you think the people of this country (as example) would not seek the chance to abuse the Sharia Law? And I also used this example because you said:

Its not just about other muslim countries and their version of islamic law, its the fact that we are so weak that we get bootlicking muslims in this ummah who instead of explaining islam and defending it - will instead change our laws to suit the kuffar

The leniency laws and the stupid law that a rape victim has to have four witnesses (as example) is what some groups want to change. I asked you, Are you against that?

Anyways, forget it.

Peace

[Salahudeen]

I feel as if the following post is relevant to this thread.



The progressives are those Muslims who claim that they are Muslim, they ascribe to Islam but they consider that Islam has to change from time to place, so Islam has to progress, that there are certain fundamentals and principles which will never change, and there are others which are subject to change.

Now the premise or the concept might be valid but the problem is the progressives take it to an extreme, and for those of you who are for example familiar with the Friday prayers that were led by a woman this was something sponsored by the progressive Muslims', they want to bring about a radical reinterpretation of Islam, I mean no holds barn literally, so the point being this movement is now gaining more and more force especially in America and Canada, therefore it is imperative we understand where they are coming from because there is a certain point of validity to them and others which are obviously totally incorrect and false so its important we understand where they're coming from and try to dialogue and negotiate with them and try to correct their interpretations of Islam.

I'd like to start off this lengthy post by giving you an allegorical story, and InshAllah through this story most of the points and content that I want to bring up will be illustrated.

Imagine if you will, a land far far away, an imaginoary land, lets call it the United Lands of Veganopolis, the people of this land were Vegans, meaning that they did not eat any meat or any meat derived products These people felt that eating meat was something cruel and barbaric, that it was indicative and primitive uncivilised people who eat meat.

And they prided themselves in the fact that, they did not eat meat, that they were above the rest of society, the rest of civilisation and other countries. This pride reached such heights, they considered themselves so advanced, the pinnacle of civilization that they even divided the entire world based upon, the convictions that the people had, to eating meat.

They would judge other nations, other countries and other civilizations depending on, whether they eat meat or not, so the countries that agreed with their concept of not eating meet were called the primary world, "these are the people of the primary world" those that totally rejected their premise and eat meat indiscriminately were labelled the tertiary world, and those that agreed on some points and didn't on others were called the secondary world.

So they divided the entire Earth into arena's into civilizations, into category's, because they were so sure that eating meat was a barbaric uncivilised evil act, that anyone who eat meat still, basically had to be backwards and uncivilised.

Now imagine if you will in this United Lands of Veganopolis three brothers, lets call them "Salman" "Khalid" and "Ali". Their parents had come from one of these tertiary world countries but they were raised in Veganopolis and they grew up absorbing the culture and the environment that they found themselves in.

Their parents were Muslims but they didn't do a thorough job, of explaining the fundamentals of Islam to their 3 children. So the 3 children grew up occasionally praticing Islam, calling themselves Muslims, but not really and truly understanding the fundamentals of their religion.

Now it so happens that when these 3 children "Salman, Khalid and Ali" grew up and became adults their parents passed away in a short period of time one after the other, and for the first time in their lives, they had to think about very deep and crucial issues, they went through a spiritual crisis. So they sat down one day and said

"You know we've never studied this religion of our parents, this country that they came from in the tertiary world, they were all Muslims in that country, when they came here they took their Islam and they brought us into this religion as well but we never studied it, so let us study this religion, let us give ourselves a few months and then come back and discuss our findings, "what do we think of our religion of Islam".


And so the 3 brothers went and parted their different ways and studiously investeigated the Qur'an, the books of hadith, the books of theology, the books of fiqh and after 6 months they met once again to present their conclusion. Salman was the oldest of the three, he said

"You know guys, our parents were great people, they really and truly loved us, and they were honest people, but with all due respect to them and their believes after studying Islam I've come to the conclusion that it's a false religion, I can not be a Muslim anymore"

both of his brothers were totally shocked but he said

"listen to me, let me explain my position, don't be hasty in judging me, I knew that our parents used to eat meat, and yes ocassionaly we would eat it too growing up, even though we would be embarressed and not wanna tell our friends what we were doing, but we eat meat sometimes, and this was something we thought they imported from their tertiary world countries, but for the first time in my life I read the Qur'an, I went back to the books of Hadith, I studied the books of Fiqh and it is very clear to me having studied these texts that the religion of Islam openly and unabashingly allows the eating of meat, infact it tells us that eating meat is one of the blessings of God, the Qur'an tells us that eating meat is a blessing and to eat the meat over which God's name has been mentioned"
So Salman said

"Look at these verses, as for the hadith and sunnah, it is confirmed that in this book they call Bukhari, which is considered to be the most authentic book by Muslims' it is confirmed in this book that one of the most beloved dishes to the prophet (Sallallahu 'alayhi wa salam) was a juicy sheeps leg, he loved it, and it is also confirmed that he would all ways eat meat when it was presented to him, from the books of sunnah we know that he commanded his companions to actually slaughter and kill animals on religious holidays and festivals, for example when children were born and on Eid al Adha and so on.

And when I looked at the books of Fiqh, even more amazment, forget cows and sheep and other animals that even most of the other non Muslims of the tertiary world countries eat, I mean some of these Madhabs such as, there's this madhab called the Hanabli's and another called the Shafi's, they even allowed the eating of Foxes and Coyoties, most of the scholars of hadith deemed it permissable to eat desert lizards.

And then there's this guy, they call him Malik, he has a Maliki madhab, this guy IS JUST TOTALLY AMAZING! this madhab claims that it's not EVEN sinful to eat Cats, Dogs, Scorpians and Snakes. And I even found some scholars who allowed the eating of vermin and other insects.

So in all honesty, I must state that I can not believe in a book that claims to be divine and yet allows such barbaric uncivilised backward pratices, basically I can not be a Muslim anymore because this book really and truly is a backwards book, it tells us that eating meat is permissible and a blessing from God.

So I now believe it is my duty to convince my fellow Muslims that their religion is not a correct religion, that they have to live up with the times, they have to understand that, THAT was something of the past, now we know and we're sure that eating meat is an uncivilised and barbaric practice".

So Salman gave his speech and the other two brothers listend quitely to what he had to say, then the middle brother spoke who's name was Khalid. Khalid said

"My brothers, I too have studied the text extensively, and I too have read the Qur'an and have read the books of the scholars of the past, and all of this has led me to re affirm my comittment to the religion of Islam. I am totally sure of this beautifull religion. I am a Muslim, and I am proud of it.

Now I must confess my dear brother Salman that alot of what you said might be true from a historical point of view, but I think your analysis is very superficial, that you haven't really under taken a critical methodlogical study of the texts of Islam.

You are taking things out of context without historical analysis, without really thinking about, where these things came from. Firstly you have to realise the Qur'an no doubt is a book from God but it was revealed at a specific time and place, you can not just take the understanding of a scholar 1000 thousand years ago and extrapolate it to our times, we need to think deeper about these verses, realise that the Qur'an came to a group of backwards people, People who were immersed in the eating of meat, they would drink blood and offer sacrafices to their idols so when Islam came, it couldn't eradicate the eating of meat, it would be to radical to do so, rather what it did was that it modified it, to make it acceptable, refined, sophisticated for the people of those times.

Now we have evolved to a higher level and we need to explicate these verses and give them a fresh look in order to make them suitable for the times we live in, as for these hadith you quoted, well realise first and foremost the prophet (saw) no doubt I respect and love him but he was a human being he wasn't divine. also these books of hadith I mean they were compiled 100s of years after the prophet (saw) we don't really know whether they can be authentic or not.

And if you look at it, there can be no doubt that the majority of times the prophet (saw) did not eat meat, I mean the same book you quoted Bukhari, it's mentioned that his wife Ayesha said " 3 months would go by and no fire would be lighted" so their not eating meat for 3 months, and there's also many narrations where certain types of meat were presented to the prophet (saw) and he said "I don't want to eat this meat"

like wise for most of his life he would eat a vegetarian diet, meat was not something that was common, and it is also narrated that the prophet (saw) rebuked a person for mis treating his animal. So is it possible that the same prophet , the prophet of mercy who got angry when a person didn't feed his animal properly would then command us to sacrafice an animal and eat it? I mean use your mind O Salman, THINK!! how is it possible that this prophet of mercy will instruct his companions to be blood thirsty on this day of Eid Al Adha, think deeper than that, don't just read these books of hadith and take it for granted, and as for these scholars of Fiqh, I mean COME ON THESE ARE HUMAN BEINGS, who lived and died, they are not a source of authority.

Yes your gonna find scholars who have strange and exotic opinions but you also find other opinions, for example there's this other madhab called the Hanafi madhab, and this madhab doesn't allow the eating of any meat from the sea except for a certain type of fish. So all types of shrimbs and lopsters the Hanafi madhab said "NO NO YOU CAN't EAT IT"

So you see we find certain parellels in the scholars of the past, when they had these progressive views, we have to look at the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law. So in my opinion if you understand the general rules of Islam and work with them, it is possible to incorporate many of the modern ethics that we have with regards to our diet and culinary opinions and we realise that Islam came with the intent of eradicating the evil pratice of eating meat even though it didn't do so from day one.

Therefore I am a Muslim and I am proud of it, and I say Islam does not allow the eating of meat".

This was the response of Khalid, it was now Ali's turn, the youngest of the 3 and also the most contemplative and intelligent of them. Ali nodded his head and began his articulation, he said

"My dear older brothers Khalid and Salman, all though the out come of both of your searches has ended in diametrically opposed opinions, that one of you claims he is a kafar the other claims he is a Muslim, in reality both of you are operating from the same paradime, both of you are coming from the same usool, from the same frame work, from the same frame of mind, from the same principles AND THIS has led both of you to go into errors even though the errors are opposite of one another.

So both of you are coming from the same world if you like, even though your conclusions are diametrically opposed to one another. The premise from which you commennced your investiation was to exceed the validity of what your culture has taken for granted which is, " that eating animals is morally and ethically reprihensible and barbaric", it was this same basic premise which was accepted as beyond question by both of you that caused you O Salman to reject our religion when it clearly allows for the eating of meat, and it caused you O Khalid to improvize our religion and change it in an unprecidated manner.

But both of you never questioned the validity of this belief, you never once asked yourself "Is it possible that what my culture and civilization has believed in this matter is simply not correct! is eating meat an ethical abomination? And if a civilization becomes Vegan does this mean that they are the pinnacle of civilization, that they are the first world and the primary world?

And everybody else is living in barbaric and backwards lands, you see my dear brothers this is were you fell into an error. The correctness and validity of a religion should not be decided on subsidiary issues such as its position on eating meat.

You don't decide whether a religion is valid or not by looking at whether it eats meat or not, rather a religions primary claim of legitamacy stems from its theological positions, questions of doctrine such as God, who is God? the nature of God? The purpose of Life? The concept of an after life? this is where we think about religion.

This is what we use to judge between the various religions, this is what we place our verdict on, we look at the theologey of a faith, we look at the concept of God and the worship of God and then we decide whether that religion is valid or not. And once we have decided that a particular religion is valid then we must take it as an entire and total package because if we were to start examining every subsidiary legal ruling, trying to out guess the religion, then in reality we are not submitting to the religion but rather causing the religion to submit to us.

Now if we apply this criterion to Islam we find that no other religion is as persuasive, as cogent in its appeal to legitamcy as the religion of Islam. No other religion has such a simple perfect rational theology.

And this is something I can clearly proove to you, the concept of Allah and his names and attributes, and that only he has the right to be worshipped, and he sends perfect human beings called messengers so on and so forth.

No other religion even comes close! there's no competition, Islam beats all religions hands down! so when I came to this conclusion, when I realised that this is true, I then realised that I have to submit to the commandments that also came with the theology, it is not my right to seperate the commandments from the theology,

and when I looked at the Qur'an and sunnah then I had to agree with my brother Salman, that yes the Qur'an and sunnah clearly calls for the eating of meat, the permisablity and the fact it is a blessing from God that we have been allowed to eat meat.

This realisation caused me for the first time to challenge the premise upon which our society lays its claim for fame, which is that eating meat is a backwards thing, our society claims it is the pinnacle of civilization because they are a society of vegans, they consider themselves the most civilized the most mighty, the most powerful simply because of this issue.

But for the first time in my life I had to look at this premise and think about it in a very deep manner, never before had I questioned it. But now because the Qur'an and sunnah was clearly calling to it I had to think about it, and I thought of a number of things.

Firstly, how do we judge whether something is immoral or ethical, how do we judge? I mean no doubt certain things such as taking a persons property or even his life we know from our fitrah that these are unjust and evil, but not everything can be based upon the fitrah.

What might be appealing to you might be distasteful to me, and what I might like, you might hate, so I can't use my opinion to say that eating meat is unethical. So how do we proove this point?

In other words it is impossible to uncategorically claim that eating meat is ethical or unethical, it is impossible to say so, what proof do I have.

Secondly, I noticed that the majority of mankind, not only in our times but also through out the centuries eat meat, and it doesn't appear that they lived any less happily then we do, in fact we've all been back home to our tertiary world countries and in all honesty, even though they're eating meat they seem to be happier because of it.

They're living happier lives then we are in this primary world country, they're joyful, they love their society and culture, they love each other.

Thirdly, we claim to have reached the pinnacle of civilization but lets be honest here, we look down on other civilizations just because of this issue, yet we truly ignore a million other factors!

How can we ignore that our society is the most violent of all socities, the most promiscuous, the most infested with crime and drugs, THE HIGHEST IN THE WORLD IN TERM OF ITS INHABITANTS IN JAIL.

How can we forget these statistics and throw them under the table and say "Just because we are a vegan society, just because we call to not eating meat we are the best of mankind" how can we claim moral and spiritual superiorty when statistics show that our lives are worse and inferior to other men in tertiory world countries.

And it's not just the quantity of crimes that our civilization commits, it's the heinoius and the monstrosity, last week it was reported that a woman threw her baby in the microwave and cooked her untill the baby died.

Also about the parents killing their children and the children killing their parents you don't hear about these crimes in other countries, it's not just the quantity it's the monstrosity and the way its blatantly advertised in the news and not a person blinks his or hers eyes when they read it.

How can you ignore all of this and say "Just because we don't eat meat we have reached the pinnacle of civilization" so you see in my opinion I have come to the conclusion, that I was wrong in this issue, that the moral and ethical views of the United Lands of Veganopolos are simply not the moral and ethical views that are divine in and of themselves. They could be right and they could be wrong.

And it was this basic premise that both of you fell into and which caused both of you to fall into serious mistakes, even though both of you are on opposite sides of the fence in reality you're not that far apart.

And a very strange fact must be said here, Salman you have rejected Islam, you have said you're not a Muslim anymore and while it's true that the average Muslim will be appauled and disgusted by your blatant Kufr, in reality you make more logical sense and your opinions are more easily defendable both historically and textually than the opinions of Khalid.

Because you Salman come out and say "I don't believe in this religion" what can a person argue now with you, but you O Khalid claim you are a believer and yet you come forth with opinions which go against the book, and you come forth with opinions that have no precedence in history, no precendence in Usool, no precedene in Hadith, how can you claim to be a believer and yet reject every second statement in the book and the sunnah.

Your opinions O Khalid, you who have claimed to be a Muslim are illogical and more difficulty to defend than the opinion of Salman who has rejected Islam out right.

So to conclude, I am a Muslim and I'm proud of it, but if I am a Muslim then by definition (what does it mean to be a Muslim) I must submit to the laws of Islam, I must do Islam to the laws of Islam and not take the laws of Islam and make them Muslim to me, make them submit to me.

As for both of you, I pray that Allah guides you to understand that your concept of intellect and ethics is not an ultimate judge over Allah, you are not more wiser or more knowledgeable then Allah. Use your intellect and knowledge where you should and refrain from using it when it is not part of the realm of intellect and logic


This is the end of the parable inshAllah I think the message I'm trying to bring through it is quite understandable, in our times its not the issue of meat that is problematic but rather issues of freedom of choice, of punishments, of women's roles, of morality.

Salman in this allegory symbolizes the few pseudo intelecctuals who feel Islam can not be a divine religion because it tells women to cover themselves up or that it allows polygamy or that it instructs its followers to cut off the hands of the theif. Salman and people like him openly say "This is a backwards ridiculous religion any body who believes in it is an utter fool" but they have judged the religion on based upon subsidiary issues.

Khalid on the other hand symbolizes the progressors with in Islam, those who basically wish to take the para dime that the United Lands of Veganopolos has deemed to be the best for mankind, and then claim that this para dime is reality of Islam.

"This is Islam, Islam came with vegan ethics don't eat meat, but that was a backward time and place and so Allah could only do so much"

Now that I have come Khalid basically says I can change everything and I can bring Islam upto bar with the United Lands of Veganopolos. For 14 centaraies Khalid would argue "Every one had it wrong, they simply did not understand Islam untill I came about"

And that's in reality the conclusion that these type of people are forced to make because they are coming forth with unprecedented opinion, not based upon the Qur'an or the sunnah or the opinion of any 'Alim. In total contrary distinction to every single ayah and hadith that there is.

And Ali of course represents that rare breed in our times who combines an understanding of historical reality and the ethical dimension of the United Lands of Veganopolos. Along with a deep and profound understanding of Islam.

These are the 3 trends that we are now facing in our time, we have a few who are open murtads, the Salman's if you like, of course no direct reference to any particular person we're thinking of

The Salman's openly ridicule the religion because of the meat issue and the Khalids try to say that Islam was like this from day one. But both of them are wrong and both of them even though they come to different conclusions in reality they're standing on the same pedestal, they're standing on the same foundation and back ground.

And I wanna quote you two examples from the time of the Prophet (saw) which really and truly proove this point, two example and I want you to think about these examples and understand them. We're gonna have to gloss over them.

The first of them, is the issue of women's inheritance, Ibn Abbas narrates as At Tabari reports in his tafseer that

"When the verses of inheritance were revealed and the shares were assigned to women and to children, and to old people and parents, some of the people disliked it, and they said ""we give a woman a forth and a eighth and we give a daughter a halve and we give a baby boy an inheritance but none of these people is amongst those who fight enemies or take war booty""

Why did they not like this ruling? it went against their sensitivities, they were offended some of the people, they were offended and said

"it's so backward to give inheritance to people who don't fight in war, we give inheritance in our times based upon a man's power, how much benefit he is to our tribe, the stronger he is and the better warrior he is, he gets inheritance, as for women who stay at home and do nothing why should we give them inheritance what's the point? babies? makes no sense, so the sahabba said "let us remain silent about these rulings perhaps the prophet (saw) will forget about them or we can talk to him and he will change these rulings"

notice this is not an issue of theolgy, it's an issue of sensitivities, of moralities, of ethics, women's rights of inheritance, they're offended, how can it be that a woman inherits? it makes no sense. So they said

"let us ignore this ruling or maybe some of us can go and try to talk to the prophet (SAW) and see if he can change his mind, so some of them went to the prophet (saw) and they said "Ya rasoolullah, oh messenger of Allah, shall we give a little girl halve of what her father leaves behind while she can not even ride a horse or fight against the enemy? and we have babies taking inheritance despite the fact that they are of no benefit to us, rather they are a burden upon us we have to feed them! they don't have to feed us! how can we give a baby inheritance?"

So they're complaining to the prophet (saw) so Allah (swt) revealed in the Qur'an many verses, of them the beginning verses of surah Nisa, " Allah legislates for you regarding your children, men shall get twice the share of women"

and then he goes on and on there is like 5 verses in the Qur'an all about the details of inheritance and at the end of the verse Allah (swt) says a very beautifull point
" Your fathers and your children, you do not know which of the two of them will be of more benefit to you, your fathers or your children you do not know, verily Allah is Aleem and Hakeem, Allah is the one who is All Knowledgeable and All Wise".

Can you imagine if we had to decide inheritance, and you have your father who is still alive and your son. How would you possibly divide between your father who has spent a life time defending and raising you and now he has no 1 to take care of him except you and your wealth versus your son who is depending on you for your income, how would you divide it? Think of the moral dilemma, Allah says

"you don't know, I know leave it to me"

And then Allah (swt) says about women, if a wife dies and leaves a husband, the husband gets a halve or a forth, if the husband dies and leaves a wife she gets a forth or an eighth and then at the end of the verse Allah concludes

Allah is the one who is all knowledgeable and the one who is Haleem, Haleem has the connontation of mercy and protection, and in the third verse right after this one Allah (swt) mentions the case of sombody who dies without children and spouses he has distant relatives only and then Allah concludes

"These are the commandments and laws of Allah"

these are the boundries whoever obeys Allah and his messenger, Allah will cause him to enter jannah and be forgiven, and whoever disobeys Allah and his messenger, Allah will cause him to enter the fire of hell and he will be punished severely.

This is not an issue of theology it is an issue of morality, of ethics, and Allah (swt) convinced the sahabba through these verses
"you don't know I know, leave it to me, I am the all wise"

Ponder over this issue that the jahliya arabs and the early Muslims thought to themselves how is it possible it makes no sense that women inherit and Allah (swt) said "I know and you don't"

The second example that I wanted to quote is the issue of class and nobility, if the issue of women's inheritence brought confusion to some of the sahabba, there was an issue that even the beloved prophet (saw) was somewhat swayed by, an issue where even he, was all most about to agree to the cultural customs of the time he lived in because he thought that were would be a benefit in agreeing with society and it was an issue that was undoubtely the single greatest social change that the religion of Islam brought with it, and it is a change that challenged the foundations of Arabian society, as we all know, Jahiliya was based upon tribe, it was based upon "my father and your father, everything in my life was dependant upon who my father was, my status, my protection, even my marriage would be dependant upon who my father was", depending upon what your father did and the status of your tribe everything was decided upon that".

Of course Islam came and destroyed all of that from its basis,

"the one who is the most noble amongst you is the one who has the most taqwa"

we all know this change and we love it, but the jahiliya arabs did not love it, and it's narrated that once the Prophet (saw) was sitting with a number of the sahabba such as Ibn masood, Bilal, Amar ibn Yasir, Sufwan ibn Umaya, all of these are low class no bodies according to the jahaliya arabs, so he was with these low class people and a group of the leaders of Quraish came by and they said to the prophet (saw) "get rid of these people, let them not sit with you or engage with you then perhaps we might be sympathetic to your religion".

So they issued some ultimatum, some hope saying

"get rid of them, if you do so and you take us to be your elite because of our nobility then perhaps"

So Allah (swt) revealed in the Qur'an many verses, of them

"do not expel, do not get rid of those people who call upon their lord day and night, desiring his face, Allah then said "if you get rid of them you will be amongst wrong doers"

Allah addressed the prophet (saw) defending those companions,

"how can you get rid of these people because you want the nobility of Quraish"

Ibn Abbas narrated "The prophet (saw) was about to be swayed" but Allah revealed if you dare do this you will be among the wrong doers, so Allah told the prophet (saw) to even compromise in the ethics, the morality, the social structure of the time was a major sin, nothing to do with theology it was a social issue and Allah says "no we have our religion and they have theres"

These two instances and there are others from the seerah clearly proove that the sensiblities of different societies will be challenged by certain issues, secondary issues but the true Muslim must have trust in Allah and realise that Allah (swt) knows what is best.

Certain issues will be viewed as problematic by certain socities and times and places, but it is not our job to defend those secondary and tertiary issues, we don't argue our religion based upon women's rights and the issues of hijaab and who leads the prayer. We're never gonna gain a revert to Islam if we proove that only men can lead mixed gender congregations. This is not the way we give dawah, the way we give dawah is through our theology, through our tawheed through la ila ha il Allah. We don't base our religion upon these secondary and tertiary issues.

Source: "Making progress with the progressives" lecture by Sheikh Yasir Qadhi.

[Rhubarb Tart]

Salam

Thanks for the article.

[Al-Indunisiy]

@squiggle:

:sl:

Sorry for asking but, is that article specifically adresses another article in this thread? And if yes, is it to my OP or to 13th Yarba's? Just curious.

[Salahudeen]

@squiggle:

:sl:

Sorry for asking but, is that article specifically adresses another article in this thread? And if yes, is it to my OP or to 13th Yarba's? Just curious.

No I didn't even read the other articles, I just saw the thread title and posted it.