format_quote Originally Posted by
TheRightPathI
Is Saudia Arabia ruled by Shariah law?
There is no country today that is implementing the Shari'ah law completely or with full precision.
However, in terms of
criminal law, then for the most part Saudi Arabia is compliant with the Shari'ah law.
This has to be the wrong ruling right?
First of all, let me answer the question concerning rape according to Islamic law. Here's what I've posted before in another thread:
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
:sl:
Threads merged [again]. From earlier in this thread:
format_quote Originally Posted by
Ansar Al-'Adl
:sl:
From the Shari'ah perspective, it is false to say that four witnesses are necessary to prove rape - whoever says this is confusing rape with adultery! As Shaykh Sulayman Al-'Isa notes:
A woman will not be punished if there is any reason to believe that she was forced into the act. The least evidence in this regard will be sufficient to save the woman from punishment. Our Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “
Allah has pardoned my people for the acts they do by mistake, due to forgetfulness, and what they are coerced into doing” [Related by Ibn Mâjah and authenticated by al-Nawawî, Ibn Hajr, and al-Albânî].
Also, it was related by Ibn Abî Shaybah through Târiq b. Shahâb that a woman accused of adultery was taken to Caliph `Umar. The woman pleaded that she was asleep and woke up to find the man over her. `Umar released the woman. [The narration was approved by al-Albâni]. Ibn Qudâmah stated in his book al-Mughnî: “
There is no punishment on the woman who was coerced into adultery.” (
SOURCE)
A detail discussion linked here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...tml#post330381
Also please see:
http://www.islamicboard.com/444943-post145.html
:w:
format_quote Originally Posted by ThRightPathI
I'm truly confused because I thought Saudi Arabia was the one and only country as of right now that rules by the Shariah Law. Please can someone explain this to me.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15836746/
Let us first determine what the major points of the article. The article looks at anecdotal evidence and hearsay concerning one case and then uses this to make broad generalizations about every court proceeding that goes on in the entire country. According to the article, the case is as follows: a woman met with a male acquaintence in a car, they were kidnapped and raped by seven men. 4 of the men have already been sentenced by the judge to punishments ranging from 80 to 1000 lashes, and the man and woman were also sentenced to 90 lashes.
Not let us proceed to the analysis. First, notice the blatant biased spin of the article which provides the subtitle "Judge sentences female victim to more lashes than her assailant" - but the reality is that they are only looking at the ONE person who got the LEAST punishment, not at the assailant who got 1000 lashes! Look at this article which goes a step further and instead of saying 'assailant' it says 'rapist
s'!!
http://news.aol.com/world/story/_a/s...990005?cid=774
The statement 'Saudi Girl Sentenced to More Lashes Than Her Rapists' is a BLATANT LIE since only one person got less lashes and that was because his involvement in the crime was not established with evidence! The media transforms one alleged assailant, into a confirmed assailant, into a confirmed rapist, into confirmed rapist
s!
The ministry said the trouble in this case was the paucity of evidence to convict some of the men - how do we know that this man who recieved only 80 lashes may hardly have been involved in the rape if at all? Maybe the evidence they had was only sufficient to establish the crime of the rape in the case of some of the men, but for this man there was only evidence sufficient to establish some marginal support for the assailants but no true involvement himself. This article is a clear iece of pure propaganda.
As for ta'zîr (discretinary) punishments - they are punishments for offences which do not have a prescribed punishment in the Shari'ah. Thus, ta'zîr punishments are also applied when there is not sufficient evidence to merit a hadd (prescribed) punishment.
So actually ta'zîr punishments are from the beauty of Islamic law as they allow for flexibility in dealing with crimes according to that which is most appropriate for the circumstances and most reasonable. The judges are to construct their verdicts on whatever circumstantial evidence is available including
DNA evidence. So if the evidence is strong enough to show that one person was definitely involved in a serious offence then we have the punishment like 1000 lashes. For another person, if there is scare evidence that they were involved in the crime and there is even doubt as to what kind of crime is being considered (rape, assault, kidnapping) then the person would recieve a punishment according to what they deserved. So if the evidence is only enough to show a minor level of complicity in the offence then we have the punishment like 80 lashes.
The
only issue in the ruling that one may find objectionable is the punishment prescribed for the woman. Unfortunately, the news sites have not provided us with ANY information from the judiciary on it and would have us believe that this was just some insane judgement out of the blue. Yet given the fact that these articles already have used blatant distortions and lies to manipulate the picture, I would be hesitant to accept their portrayal of this aspect of the case as fully accurate. Hence, until reasons are completely known for this verdict then we cannot make any judgement about the ruling from the Saudi court.
As for the claim about the judges issuing arbitrary judgements according to their whims, then we need to understand the plans to improve and standardize the Saudi judiciary, being headed by notable scholars like Shaykh 'Abdul-Muhsin bin Nâsir Âl 'Ubaykân. The shaykh had the following
interview with
Asharq Al-Awsat Newspaper concerning his plans for regulation, inspection and standardization of the judicial verdicts:
Q: What is your opinion of the current procedures for train Saudi judges given that, in other countries, a judge is required to undergo 36 hours of training every year to remain in his post?
A: Training judges for their posts is important and will soon be implemented.
Whereas in the past, we had limited and insufficient training, under the newly organized judiciary, established by royal decree, judges will now have to undertake an extensive training period before they can join the Higher Institute for the judiciary. The Institute itself will be overhauled to ensure the best preparation for judges.
Q: Some observers’ call for judges to receive training on how to implement the rulings of the Fiqh Assemblies (assemblies of Islamic Jurisprudence) in order to give appropriate decisions. What is your opinion?
A: I believe the official movement toward the formulation of legal articles is even more beneficial in this respect I am aware that some judgments are to be classified into legal articles after consideration of the evidence available and the interest of all parties. This new arrangement will be overseen by a committee and will be open to all schools of Islamic jurisprudence (The schools of Islamic thought or jurisprudence, the four most important of which were founded by Malik, Abu Hanifa, Al-Shafie and Ahmad ibn Hanbal).
Q: What about “Ta'azîr”, which are subjectively, estimated penalties, applied when there is no specific legal text or opinion to direct the judge? Do you agree with those who complain of the presence of significant variation between edicts due to the lack of set criteria?
A: Let me assure you that, in the upcoming judicial reform, there will be an arrangement regarding Ta'azîr penalties.
Q: What do you think of the number of judicial inspectors in the Kingdom, currently 19?
A: I can’t give you a specific number but I believe it is important to increase the number of inspectors but, more importantly, inspectors need to be successful judges in their own right so they could, in turn, hold other judges accountable.
Q: The current number of judges in Saudi Arabia is estimated at 600. Is that, in your opinion, sufficient to cover the needs of the Kingdom’s citizens?
A: Certainly not! There is a plan to increase the number to 2000, so that all judicial posts would be filled. A computer network will then link all the judges in Saudi Arabia under a newly formed Judicial Inspection Authority, which will be responsible for training and inspections across the Kingdom.
Q: Are judges’ performances evaluated under the existing system?
A: In theory, yes. However, in practice, appraisals do not often occur. I hope this will be remedied in the near future.
Q: Some accuse judges of being rude and harsh in their dealings with Saudis in the courts. Do you agree?
A: Let us not generalize. Some judges might fit your description while others are very polite. This is why, I believe, it is important to train judges and instruct them to deal with people cordially.
The Shaykh also
responded to criticism of his plan to codify Shari'ah law:
One of those scholars who opposed my attempts to codify Sharia wrote, "Sharia is strictly denoting to Quran and the Sunnah (sayings of the Prophet Mohammed). The Ijtihads of the jurists are not included as such. Now could we ever codify the Quran and Sunnah? They are so great and holy that they could not be codified in legal terms and as articles of law."
In response, I would say that what is actually meant by codifying Islamic Jurisprudence is the writing down of its rules, which is the same as issuing Fatwas (religious edicts) deduced from Quran and Sunnah. These rules will be taken from Quran, Sunnah, and Ijmaa (consensus of jurists).
Why would this be religiously prohibited? What is the difference between the books of jurisprudence and the codification of the rules? We know that books of jurisprudence contain rules directly or indirectly taken from Quran and Sunnah to make it easier to teach students and to facilitate legislation. Codification and the books of jurisprudence are the same.
Thanks to Almighty God, our courts apply Sharia law. However, there are several rules and varied opinions as some verses in the Quran and Sunnah can be interpreted in many ways. In addition, the human mind is limited, which may cause conflict between opinions.
It is for this reason that codification is necessary. It would contribute to establishing justice. It will facilitate a judge's work and relieve him of conducting difficult research in the books of jurisprudence. We are living in times that require rapid verdicts in accumulating cases. This process will be speeded up by codification. Codification would also be useful to end the serious matter of conflicting verdicts that sometimes occur within the same case and in the same city, perhaps even in the same court or that are issued by the same judge.
So we can see that the leaders of the Saudi judiciary and the judiciary consultants, like Shaykh Abdul-Mushin, are very open-minded and working towards improving and standardizing the system with brilliant plans of reform contrary to how the media protrays them and distorts cases in an attempt to further malign Shar'ah law and those who implement it.
I hope this helps.
:w: