Standard of justice. Allah and Bible God.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

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

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

Regards
DL

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

 

[aamirsaab]

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

That is my only bone of contention.

Regards
DL

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards
DL

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

That doesn't make any sense.

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

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

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

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

 

[Whatsthepoint]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[aamirsaab]

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

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

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

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

 

[Whatsthepoint]

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

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

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

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

 

[aamirsaab]

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

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

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

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

 

[Great I am not]

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

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

Muslims have a better per capita criminal record.

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

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

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

Regards
DL

 

[Great I am not]

QUOTE]

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

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

Regards
DL

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

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

Muslims have a better per capita criminal record.

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

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

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

Regards
DL

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

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

 

[ragdollcat1982]

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

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

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

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

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

 

[Great I am not]

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

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

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

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

Now if you are clear on my view.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards
DL

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

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

Islam will eventually die

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

 

[ragdollcat1982]

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

 

[Zafran]

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

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

 

[ragdollcat1982]

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

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

 

[Zafran]

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

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

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

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

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

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

 

[Yanal]

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

 

[aamirsaab]

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

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

Regards
DL

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

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