Standard of justice. Allah and Bible God.

format_quote Originally Posted by Walkinfront

Regarding the cutting off of the limbs:

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

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

Inshallah that answers part of your question.

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

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

Regards
DL

format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab

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

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

Now do you understand the concept of justice in Islam?

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

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

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

I think the Western rules are better.

format_quote Originally Posted by Light of Heaven

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

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

Regards
DL

format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab

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

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

Now do you understand the concept of justice in Islam?

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

That is my only bone of contention.

Regards
DL

format_quote Originally Posted by eHafiz

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

It is a good phrase.

It is the definition of proof that I dispute.

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

Regards
DL

format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab

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

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

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

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

Regards
DL

format_quote Originally Posted by eHafiz

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

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

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

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

Deut 21

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

Regards
DL

format_quote Originally Posted by Yanal

I think the Western rules are better.

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

Regards
DL

format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab

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

That doesn't make any sense.

format_quote Originally Posted by Light of Heaven

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

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

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

Regards
DL

format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint

That doesn't make any sense.

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

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

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

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

Regards
DL