Standard of justice. Allah and Bible God.

[Muezzin]

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

Same thing secular law would do. Nothing on the counts of suicide, because the chain of causation has broken - the stock trader is not directly responsible for their deaths, so he has committed no crime on that front. How one could induce suicide in any case, I don't know.

As for his guilty conscience, he'd probably be recommended therapy.

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.

So I take it you don't like most secular laws of theft either then? Because, in them, if the perpetrator returns the item, the act is not a crime.

In British law at least, the mental element of theft is 'intention to unlawfully take property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it'.

If Johnny takes Peter's radio with the intention of never giving it back, he has committed theft as defined by the law.

If Johnny takes Peter's radio without telling Peter, but intends to return it in the same condition, Johnny has not committed theft as defined by the law, because he gave the property back.

This is all broadly speaking, of course. Different circumstances would affect the outcome, such as if Johnny 'borrowed' the radio by first breaking into Peter's house.

The point on deterrence is irrelevant because in the eyes of the law, no theft has occurred unless the person intends to permanently deprive the victim of his property. Now, if, in the example, Johnny did in fact intend to permanently deprive Peter of the radio at the time of taking it, but gave it back simply to avoid criminal proceedings, there would indeed be issues to work through.

 

[Whatsthepoint]

The point on deterrence is irrelevant because in the eyes of the law, no theft has occurred unless the person intends to permanently deprive the victim of his property. Now, if, in the example, Johnny did in fact intend to permanently deprive Peter of the radio at the time of taking it, but gave it back simply to avoid criminal proceedings, there would indeed be issues to work through.

That's how I understood aamirsab post. The perpetrator can avoid having his hands cut off if he rturns the stolen item or an appropriate monetary sum. Which is wrong and it is not how modern laws work if the thief gets caught.

 

[Muezzin]

That's how I understood aamirsab post. The perpetrator can avoid having his hands cut off if he rturns the stolen item or an appropriate monetary sum. Which is wrong and it is not how modern laws work if the thief gets caught.

Well, in a Sharia court, the judge's word is final. It is at his or her sole discretion whether or not to let the perpetrator go unpunished in those circumstances.

In modern secular law, if the thief is caught then claims to want to return the item, there is indeed a problem. If the person is telling the truth, arguably no offence has been comitted (but this seems fishy to say the least). If, however, they are simply trying to avoid punishment, it would indeed be wrong to let them go free.

Which is why Sharia courts, as their secular counterparts, govern cases on an individual basis.

 

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:


Cut off (from the wrist joint) the (right) hand of the thief, male or female, as a recompense for that which they committed, a punishment by way of example from Allâh. And Allâh is All*Powerful, All*Wise.

But whosoever repents after his crime and does righteous good deeds (by obeying Allâh), then verily, Allâh will pardon him (accept his repentance). Verily, Allâh is Oft*Forgiving, Most Merciful.


(Qur'an Al Ma'ida 5:38)



A couple of points to note on the punishment of amputation for theft:

a-the punishment will not be applied if there is any doubt as to the guilt of the suspect

b-the punishment will not be applied if the value of the stolen goods is below something of great value -> determined by 'urf [customs of society]

c-the punishment will not be applied if the thief stole out of need/poverty

d-the punishment will not be applied if the goods weren't in proper storage (al-hirz) -> also determined by 'urf (customs of society)

e-the punishment will not be applied if the thief returns the goods and seeks forgiveness of the victim of the theft, before the case enters the judicial system

f-the punishment will not be applied if the culprit is not a sane adult and the crime was not committed under duress

g-the punishment will not be applied if the goods were not legally owned

h-the punishment will not be applied if it is a child stealing from parents or parents stealing from children or one spuse from another according to the opinion of all jurists except Imam Malik.

i-the punishment will not be applied if the person is permitted to enter the place from where he stole because in such a case there is no proper custody (al-hirz)

j-according to Imam Abu Hanifa the punishment is not applied to the non-muslim living in the muslim state, however Imam Shafi', Imam Malik and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal have said that it is.


​

If the theft passes these restrictions, then it recieves the hadd punishment of hand amputation. Any theft that does not meet these restrictions recieves ta'azir (discretionary punishment). In such cases the Islamic society would most likely follow case/common law by rule of precedent where like cases are treated alike.



Coming to the scenario where amputation is applied in theft, it is interesting to note the effect this has on society. I'd like to quote some parts of a discussion at a conference of the Saudi scholars:

At this point Dr. Dawalbi made a comment:

"I have been in this country for seven years", he said, "and I never saw of heard of, any amputation of the hand for stealing. This is because the crime is extremely rare. So, all that remains of that punishment is its harshness, which has made it possible for those who are tempted to steal, to keep their hands whole. Formerly, when these regions were ruled by the french-inspired Penal Code, under the Ottoman Empire, pilgrims travelling between the two Holy Cities - Mecca and Medina, could not feel secure for their purse or their life, unless they had a strong escort.

But when this country became the Saudi Kingdom, the Qur'anic Law was enforced, crime immediately disappeared. A traveller, then, could journey, not only between the Holy Cities, but even from Al-Dahran on the Gulf to Jeddah on the Red Sea, and traverse a distance of more than one thousand and five hundred kilometres across the desert all alone in his private car, without harbouring any fear or worry about his life or property, be it worth millions of dollars, and he be a complete foreigner."


​

The Saudi Delegation resumed:

"In this manner, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where Islamic law is enforced, state money is transferred from one town to another, from one bank to another, in an ordinary car, without any escort or protection, but the car driver.

Tell me, Gentlemen: in any of your Western States, would you be ready to transfer money from one bank to another, in any of your capitals without the protection of a strong police force and the necessary number of armoured cars?

...Only here, Gentlemen, in this country where Islamic Law is enforced, the American Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. William Rogers, during his visit last year, could, he and his suit, dispense with the armoured cars, which had been carried in by special planes, and which accompanied them in their tour of more than ten countries. Only here, Gentlemen, did the Government of the Kingdom not allow its visitors to go around in these cars. Eventually, Mr. Rogers spontaneously declined the guard of honour usually placed by the Government at the disposal of their foreign guests; he walked through the soulks by himself, and confessed that, in this Kingdom, and in this Kingdom alone, one had such a feeling of security that one had no more need of a guard.

...Stealing is almost unknown in our Kingdom, when people, in the great Capitals of Western countries under secular regimes, have no more security for their lives of their possessions.​

(Doi, Shari'ah: The Islamic Law, Ta Ha Publishers 1984, pp. 260-261)



​

Personally, I know many people who have lived for ten or twenty years in Saudi Arabia and they have testified that they have never come across such a case of amputation for theft. When you implement such a balanced code, theft becomes un heard of.



I want you to look at this UN survey of burglaries between 1998-2000*. Tell me who is at the bottom of the list? Who is at the top?

*http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_bur



1. United States 2,099,700 burglaries (1999)
2. United Kingdom 836,027 burglaries (2000)
.
.
.
54. Saudi Arabia 11 (2000)!!!!


Which law is more successful?


These are concrete statistics here. There is no doubt when the UN conducts a survey and the country implementing Islamic law has the fewest burglaries, it demonstrates which is the most successful law in this regard.


http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/quran-hadith-prophet-muhammad/cut-hand-thief-5-38-a-634

 

[Whatsthepoint]

edit

 

[- Qatada -]

edit

SOURCE: The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2002) (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)


http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur-crime-burglaries

 

[Whatsthepoint]

Yeah i saw that but I guess they take their info from national statistics.

 

[Follower]

They just cut off hands and feet in Somalia following shariah- 4 young men I believe ages 18-25.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31492608

amputation is not an eye for an eye- replacing the goods would be

Reminds me of the story earlier in the year about the young boy that damaged someones eye in a fight- they were going to destroy the boys eye as punishment.

ok but if the henchman cuts off anothers hand, damages the eye then shouldn't that person the henchman have his hand cut off also? The henchman knows what he is doing and it is on purpose- the damage to the eye more then likely was not, but a silly school by fight.

Obviously I am against the death penalty!

 

[- Qatada -]

Punishment is supposed to deter a criminal from commiting crimes.

So yes, if someone takes anothers eye out, then its an eye for an eye, or paying compensation, or forgiveness from the one whose harmed.

If you think thats not fair, then if someone poked your eye out, or killed your family member purposelly, would u not want him to get punished equally? If no, then what gave him the right to do that so that he cant face the same punishment?
Besides that, everything has to be taken to court and if there is any room for doubt, then retaliation doesnt apply.

And children do not face any punishment. So that claim of yours is false.

About the guys you said got their hands and feet cut off, you never told what crime they comitted.

We know the punishments are harsh, and thats why they're there, to deter people from doing evil.

 

[ragdollcat1982]

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

Sadly too many people wish all religions would go away.

 

[ragdollcat1982]

If you think thats not fair, then if someone poked your eye out, or killed your family member purposelly, would u not want him to get punished equally? If no, then what gave him the right to do that so that he cant face the same punishment?

Nothing ever gives anyone the right to purposly harm another person. However God is the ultimate judge of all of us. It is He alone who will punish or reward us for our deeds. I certainly support locking up the most depraved members of society to protect us from them and depriving a human being of freedom is the worst temporal punishment he/she can recieve. I am against the death penalty or maiming or mutliating anyone as punishment for a crime. Besides if one makes haste to execute a criminal then it takes away that persons chance to repent of their past sins and come back to God. According the Bible nobody is beyond redemption and restoration to God. Look at Paul, he is the classic example to Christians of one who did terrible things and can be redeemed. Venegence is Gods according to Hebrews 10:30 and for me as a Chrisitan taking human life as punishment is only something that God can do.



Hebrews 10:30 (King James Version)

30For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.


10:30 (Arabic Life Application Bible)

30 فَنَحْنُ نَعْرِفُ مَنْ قَالَ: «لِيَ الانْتِقَامُ، أَنَا أُجَازِي، يَقُولُ الرَّبُّ!» وَأَيْضاً: «إِنَّ الرَّبَّ سَوْفَ يُحَاكِمُ شَعْبَهُ!»

 

[- Qatada -]

Nothing ever gives anyone the right to purposly harm another person. However God is the ultimate judge of all of us. It is He alone who will punish or reward us for our deeds. I certainly support locking up the most depraved members of society to protect us from them and depriving a human being of freedom is the worst temporal punishment he/she can recieve. I am against the death penalty or maiming or mutliating anyone as punishment for a crime. Besides if one makes haste to execute a criminal then it takes away that persons chance to repent of their past sins and come back to God. According the Bible nobody is beyond redemption and restoration to God. Look at Paul, he is the classic example to Christians of one who did terrible things and can be redeemed. Venegence is Gods according to Hebrews 10:30 and for me as a Chrisitan taking human life as punishment is only something that God can do.



Hebrews 10:30 (King James Version)

30For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.


10:30 (Arabic Life Application Bible)

30 فَنَحْنُ نَعْرِفُ مَنْ قَالَ: «لِيَ الانْتِقَامُ، أَنَا أُجَازِي، يَقُولُ الرَّبُّ!» وَأَيْضاً: «إِنَّ الرَّبَّ سَوْفَ يُحَاكِمُ شَعْبَهُ!»

God is Just, so He will judge between the people on the Day of Judgment.


However, since He has made made mankind His representatives on earth, then they will apply His laws on earth which He originally sent to His Messengers'.

If the law is applied upon a criminal - then his sin is expiated for, hence forgiven.

If the criminal repents before the crime reaches the judge or leader of state - then he can ask for forgiveness from the one he comitted the crime against - and he will not be punished if he is forgiven by the victim.

If however, the crime reaches the leader and the person is not forgiven by the victim - then the law will apply, to deter future criminals from doing any evil acts against humanity.



Peace.

 

[Follower]

My saying young may have been misleading- it was a school age boy-in his teens. That is young to me!!

What is the age of accountability? Is there a difference if the person is mentally disabled?

 

[Zafran]

My saying young may have been misleading- it was a school age boy-in his teens. That is young to me!!

What is the age of accountability? Is there a difference if the person is mentally disabled?

The age acountability is when the boy has developed the ability to distinquish between right from wrong or the ability to use reason.

Yes there is a difference in menatally disabled - they possibly wont be accounted for what they do.

In some cultres people Mature faster then other cultures.

 

[- Qatada -]

My saying young may have been misleading- it was a school age boy-in his teens. That is young to me!!

What is the age of accountability? Is there a difference if the person is mentally disabled?

Like brother Zafran said, the person who is mentally ill and has real mental disorders is not accountable or punished because he cant even understand what hes doing.

The accountability starts after puberty.

If you're christian, i'm surprised that you find this shocking, since this is the law in the Old testament.

 

[Follower]

I understand that Muslims take the Quran literally.

Much of the Holy Bible is to be taken literally and some to be figuratively. Is the punishment mentioned in the Old Testament to be taken literally? Or is it about equal compensation? Punishment must equal the crime, wealthy and poor are to be held accountable, etc.

A good article on the Old Testament laws- Scroll about 3/4 of the way down to get to information about the Old Testament Laws.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/07/muhammads_aye_for_an_eye_law_o.html

 

[- Qatada -]

Punishment must equal the crime, wealthy and poor are to be held accountable, etc.

The same applies in Islamic law.

We believe God sent similar laws to Prophet Moses, Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon them) and the other Prophets of the children of Israel (aka Prophet Jacob/Ya'qub).

In regard to someone arguing that the law isnt applied literally, then we know that it was applied literally during the life of Moses himself. So that takes precedence over later theories or interpretations.