Shariah Law

format_quote Originally Posted by Hijrah

Wait a minute, something just crossed my mind, what about that particular Hadith that says the blood of a muslim can only be spilt for murder, adultery or apostasy, not in those exact words but you know the deal.

Always quote the hadith itself if you want an answer, not your recollections of what it said.

format_quote Originally Posted by Ulysses

Hmmm. Now that is rather worrisome to be honest.

I do find certain things worrisome about your post. Like the fact that you passed judgement on Hijrah's vague recollections and though he did not cite the Islamic text in question you immediately presumed it an accurate statement of Islamic law. The accuracy of his recollection aside, I felt it pertinent to mention that such a methodology of absorbing every bit of rumors and hearsay, without any critical analysis or supplementary research, will inevitably create problems for you.

but definitely the adultery and apostasy part.

This is the second part of your post that is 'worrisome'. Despite your presumptous attitude in passing judgement on a complex system of jurisprudence, you are clearly devoid of even a basic understanding of the principles of Islamic penal law, going to the most elementary distinction of Hudûd and Ta'âzir punishments. I would be more than willing to explicate these matters for you, but if you truly wish to learn about these matters of Sharî'ah, then it is most conducive to your learning that you adopt the attitude of a learner.

Having said that, let me now provide you with a brief explanation on the conditions for the Hadd punishment for zina (adultery) in Islam. One of the aims of the Islamic state is the protection and preservation of society from harm. The Islamic state is not aimed at monitoring the religious commitment of its citizens, rather it aims to ensure that corruption does not spread in society. The punishment for adultery requires 4 individual witnesses. There is a purpose for this massive burden of evidence. As Shaykh Abdul-Wahhab At-Turayri, former Professor at Al-Imam Univeristy [Riyadh, Saudi Arabia], writes:

The punishments for fornication and adultery are designed more to protect society from the open practice of licentious sexual behavior than they are designed to punish people.

It is nearly impossible to get a conviction for adultery except in a case where it is carried out in public for all eyes to see. With this threat of severe punishment, people will keep their evil deeds concealed and society as a whole will be protected.

So if someone commits a sin in private, they will be held accountable before God for that sin. But the function of the Islamic state, in terms of penal law, is to protect the society from harm. If people practice immoral deeds publicly then they are not only sinning themselves, but they are harming the society by spreading their immorality, and it is the latter action that requires the intervention of the state.

Also, with the separation of church and state, the definition of apostasy as a punishable offense has likewise been essentially abandoned.

To cut a long story short, I will just refer you to the response on this one:
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...conceptions#28

Regards

format_quote Originally Posted by thirdwatch512

my question is, how would homoseuxals be treate din an islamic society?

someone please go into detail about this.. and the punishment, and so forth. and does it apply to non muslims?

thanks!

Hello Thirdwatch,
Thanks for your question.

In order to deal with this question, we need a quick recap on the function of the Islamic state.

The Role of the Islamic State in Protecting the Society

The Islamic state preserves both the security and morality of its society. At the same time it is not there to police the personal religious commitment of individuals before God. It is God alone who will deal with those who sinned against Him and did not fulfill their obligations. If someone skips his prayers in private, or violates his fast, or drinks alcohol hidden away from society, it is of no concern to the state so long as it is not affecting the society. God alone will punish the perpetrator of such sins. But if someone's sins enter into the public domain then it is obligatory for the state to step in and prevent the spread of sin and this is where people are compelled to abide by the laws. This is why a person has the opportunity to repent before their sin becomes public but if it comes before the state the punishment is given to function as both deterrence and denunciation of the sin so as to prevent it from spreading.

So the state doesn't care about what they do in private so long as they are not harming society physically or morally. For instance, if we look at punishments for sexual offences like adultery and fornication, we find that these offences have an extremely high burden of proof attached to them - that is four seperate witnesses to the act of penetration. As Shaykh Abdul-Wahhab At-Turayri, former Professor at Al-Imam Univeristy [Riyadh, Saudi Arabia], writes:

The punishments for fornication and adultery are designed more to protect society from the open practice of licentious sexual behavior than they are designed to punish people.

It is nearly impossible to get a conviction for adultery except in a case where it is carried out in public for all eyes to see. With this threat of severe punishment, people will keep their evil deeds concealed and society as a whole will be protected.

So if someone commits a sin in private, they will be held accountable before God for that sin. But the function of the Islamic state, in terms of penal law, is to protect the society from harm. If people practice immoral deeds publicly then they are not only sinning themselves, but they are harming the society by spreading their immorality, and it is the latter action that requires the intervention of the state.

Homosexuality

Coming to the issue of homosexuality, then if someone has homosexual inclinations, there is no punishment or even sin upon them so long as they do not act upon it [*]. They are to be assisted and helped to cope with their inclinations so that they may overcome them or surpress them (the reality of which it is, is something to be determined by scientific inquiry). If such an invidual does commit homosexual acts privately, then they will not be punished in light of what we have mentioned earlier about the Islamic state; rather, they are encouraged to repent before Allah and seek to change their ways from this lifestyle which is harmful to themselves spiritually, socially, physically and mentally.

If however the act does become public and is performed in such an openly licentious manner as to be witnessed by four people, then the Islamic state is obligated to carry out a punishment to prevent the spread of such blatant immorality. If the licentious offenders are gays then it is execution, if they are lesbians the punishment is ta'zîr (discretionary) according to what the judge deems appropriate. Again, these punishments are only in the event of public displays of sodomy.

I hope this answers your question.
And Allah knows best.

Note to all members: this thread is not for discussion on the nature of homosexuality or whether it is moral/immoral etc. These issues have been discussed at length in the thread entitled "being Gay". The current thread is only for explication of Islamic laws.

Regards

format_quote Originally Posted by thirdwatch512

let's say for some reason i lived in saudi arabia, and i was caught having gay sex.. if irepented, would i still be executed or punished for it?

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah writes:

If he truly repents to Allah, Allah will accept his repentance, and he does not need to confess his sin to anyone so that the hadd punishment would be carried out on him. (Majmoo’ al-Fataawaa, part 34, p. 180)

The punishment would be obligated if the act was witnessed publicly and became known to the public since the society must be protected from the spread of immorality so the punishment serves as both deterrence and denunciation of the action. If the person punished had repented that is to their benefit and they will have saved themselves from the punishment in the Hereafter, but the punishment in society must still be given in order to protect the society.

also, let's say i had a boyfriend.. but we didn't have gay sex.. would i still get in trouble for that?

You wouldn't get the prescribed punishment since you are not commiting the offence but you would not be permitted to engage in such behavior. And lesser discretionary punishments could be applied for immoral acts that do not reach the level of public acts of sodomy. Muslims are commanded to call people away from such lifestyles in a peaceful wise manner with beautiful preaching.

Peace.

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah writes:

If he truly repents to Allah, Allah will accept his repentance, and he does not need to confess his sin to anyone so that the hadd punishment would be carried out on him. (Majmoo’ al-Fataawaa, part 34, p. 180)

The punishment would be obligated if the act was witnessed publicly and became known to the public since the society must be protected from the spread of immorality so the punishment serves as both deterrence and denunciation of the action. If the person punished had repented that is to their benefit and they will have saved themselves from the punishment in the Hereafter, but the punishment in society must still be given in order to protect the society.
You wouldn't get the prescribed punishment since you are not commiting the offence but you would not be permitted to engage in such behavior. And lesser discretionary punishments could be applied for immoral acts that do not reach the level of public acts of sodomy. Muslims are commanded to call people away from such lifestyles in a peaceful wise manner with beautiful preaching.

Peace.

What if a kaffir was to do it

format_quote Originally Posted by thirdwatch512

yeah, do these laws go in effect for non muslims?

If you read what brother Ansar's post. I guess it is still applicable.

"The punishment would be obligated if the act was witnessed publicly and became known to the public since the society must be protected from the spread of immorality so the punishment serves as both deterrence and denunciation of the action"

format_quote Originally Posted by Skillganon

If you read what brother Ansar's post. I guess it is still applicable.

"The punishment would be obligated if the act was witnessed publicly and became known to the public since the society must be protected from the spread of immorality so the punishment serves as both deterrence and denunciation of the action"

lol no what if the kaffir was to commit the act! Obviously, they can't repent!

format_quote Originally Posted by Hijrah

lol no what if the kaffir was to commit the act! Obviously, they can't repent!

Let me reliterate what I tried to convey. I will highlight the part for you.

"The punishment would be obligated if the act was witnessed publicly and became known to the public since the society must be protected from the spread of immorality so the punishment serves as both deterrence and denunciation of the action"

How would you protect the society if non-muslim are allowed to get away without any consequences (mayube given another chance call it their repentance)) but to say "it is not applicable because they are non-muslim" will be a misnomer.

What I am guessing (as this I am not knowledgable on that field) and maybe brother Ansar can help, that their are part of the shariah that applies to the non-muslim but not all.

However I do believe the shariah punishment discussed above is applicable to the non-muslim.

Okay, I'll try to clear up this confusion.

The Islamic state has the duty of protecting the society from the spread of evil. Non-muslims are free to do what they want so long as they are not harming the society around them. So if a non-muslim chooses to drink alcohol or eat pork, they are entirely free to do so, that is their private issue. Concerning Non-muslims living in an Islamic state:

They are citizens. Their rights, their lives, property, and honor are inviolable. They have the right to employment, education, and commerce. They cannot, however, hold certain government posts that would place them in charge of the religious affairs of the Muslims.

They have the right to practice their religion among themselves as they like without molestation. They have the right to civil courts under their own religious jurisdiction to handle affairs such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and disputes among themselves.

They must abide by the criminal code of the Muslims. However, they are allowed to engage in those matters deemed lawful in their religion that are unlawful in Islam, like the consumption of pork and alcohol, provided they keep this among themselves and do not make it accessible to the Muslim population. (SOURCE)

So the general rule is that as long as they are not spreading the behavior that is deemed by Islam to be sinful then they are free to do engage in what they want. There will be no state intervention if they confine their sexual deviation to the privacy of their own homes so that they are not flaunting it in public in any way.

So if they commit an act such as homosexuality publicly, then it is no different from the muslims because they are spreading this licentious behavior in the community.

but i always trhought that shar'iah had been for muslims only.

Shari'ah refers to the entire constitution of Islam, ALL its laws and rulings. So from the Shari'ah are the laws of how non-muslims are to live in the Islamic state and what they can and cannot do. Criminal law is part of Shari'ah and obviously all perpetrators of crimes will be punished, muslim or non-muslim. There is an entire subject of Islamic law devoted to the rulings related to non-muslims living in the Islamic state (Ahkâm Ahl Adh-Dhimmah). So from this perspective the statement "shari'ah is for muslims only" would be incorrect since many of its rulings deal with how non-muslims are to live in the Islamic state.
However, if by this statement it is meant that non-muslims are not obliged to adhere to Islamic religous practices, then this is undoubtedly true.

it said how in a true islamic nation, christians could set up their own courts and such.

As shown in the quotation I provided earlier, this is true. They can have their own courts that deal with civil, marital or other issues specific to their community. But criminal law is an affair that involves the Islamic state.

Regards

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

Okay, I'll try to clear up this confusion.

The Islamic state has the duty of protecting the society from the spread of evil. Non-muslims are free to do what they want so long as they are not harming the society around them. So if a non-muslim chooses to drink alcohol or eat pork, they are entirely free to do so, that is their private issue. Concerning Non-muslims living in an Islamic state:

They are citizens. Their rights, their lives, property, and honor are inviolable. They have the right to employment, education, and commerce. They cannot, however, hold certain government posts that would place them in charge of the religious affairs of the Muslims.

They have the right to practice their religion among themselves as they like without molestation. They have the right to civil courts under their own religious jurisdiction to handle affairs such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and disputes among themselves.

They must abide by the criminal code of the Muslims. However, they are allowed to engage in those matters deemed lawful in their religion that are unlawful in Islam, like the consumption of pork and alcohol, provided they keep this among themselves and do not make it accessible to the Muslim population. (SOURCE)

So the general rule is that as long as they are not spreading the behavior that is deemed by Islam to be sinful then they are free to do engage in what they want. There will be no state intervention if they confine their sexual deviation to the privacy of their own homes so that they are not flaunting it in public in any way.

So if they commit an act such as homosexuality publicly, then it is no different from the muslims because they are spreading this licentious behavior in the community.
Shari'ah refers to the entire constitution of Islam, ALL its laws and rulings. So from the Shari'ah are the laws of how non-muslims are to live in the Islamic state and what they can and cannot do. Criminal law is part of Shari'ah and obviously all perpetrators of crimes will be punished, muslim or non-muslim. There is an entire subject of Islamic law devoted to the rulings related to non-muslims living in the Islamic state (Ahkâm Ahl Adh-Dhimmah). So from this perspective the statement "shari'ah is for muslims only" would be incorrect since many of its rulings deal with how non-muslims are to live in the Islamic state.
However, if by this statement it is meant that non-muslims are not obliged to adhere to Islamic religous practices, then this is undoubtedly true.
As shown in the quotation I provided earlier, this is true. They can have their own courts that deal with civil, marital or other issues specific to their community. But criminal law is an affair that involves the Islamic state.

Regards

How did it come to be that some scholars believe that people other than of the Abrahamic Faiths and the Maajus can not be citizens of the Islamic state and others believe they do...Ibn Qaiyyim says they can and Muft Muhammad Shafi Usmaani, says so too that even though 9:29 is pointing at jews and Christians it is referring to everybody

format_quote Originally Posted by Hijrah

How did it come to be that some scholars believe that people other than of the Abrahamic Faiths and the Maajus can not be citizens of the Islamic state and others believe they do...Ibn Qaiyyim says they can and Muft Muhammad Shafi Usmaani, says so too that even though 9:29 is pointing at jews and Christians it is referring to everybody

Because Jews and Christians are Mushrikeen too, in terms of aqeedah. So there is a legitimate difference of opinion here, which we must acknowledge.

Im totally confused about things, this whole public and private matter.

like people would be allowed to commit adultry as long as they do it in a place that the people around them wouldnt be witnesses, so they can have like ***** houses and stuff

And people can be drunk as long as again noone sees them?