islamic criminal law + honour killings

[Ramadhan]

I don't know if it is theologically acceptable to make those minor adjustments.

Why make minor adjustments?

Anyone with clear mind and understanding of the Qur'an would have no issue with it all. Only an atheist who can't read the Qur'an and tries hard to pick up "issues" from anti muslims sites would concoct ideas that they got lost in them.

As muslims we take the Qur'an as whole and we implement it with sunnah as guidance, we don't pick and choose verses what suit us.

In your "situation", the family who hires the killer would be considered as murderer in the case too in shariah law, and that makes the principle of qisas off (they lost the right to qisas or blood money as being the murderers).

I am starting to think perhaps a plausible alternative would be to interpret such rulings as appropriate for a certain time, namely when muslims were living under a tribal system?

LOL. no. see above explanation.
That is what you get for being an atheist but suddenly thinking you are an expert in Islamic jurisprudence or Islamic sharia

 

[peaceandlove]

Brother I think there is a loophole in your question , as there is no lope hole in Islamic laws.It might be our lack of knowlege that we did not getting point and donot have much knoledge.

As what I know (I am not scholar just writing what i learn so correct me if i was wrong) , muslim ruler/court also have the right to not to accept their forgiveness as basically the orgnal murderer will be parents itself , so how can a murderer by themself forgive himself , Did not make sense to me.

 

[Perseveranze]

Asalaamu Alaikum(peace be with you),

I am extremely sure that someone who Murders the daughter of the family (who is also apart of the family) can't be forgiven if his/her own family forgive them. I'm sure Judges aren't that stupid to let anything like that ever happen.

Although I am unlearned about these things, maybe you can try to relate the following situations;

1. Abortion (you can't do this in Islam, if someone does this, do you think they can say "we forgive the mother")?
2. Child burying (This happened alot in pre-Islam, especially to daughters as they were then considered weak and a burden. Do you think if they did that today, they would be forgiven by saying "our family forgives our own actions"?)

 

[GuestFellow]

Hi all,
I hope this isn't repeating a question that has been asked before but something I read over at another website mentioned that although Islam does not advocate or encourage (it in fact condemns it) honour killings, there's a loop hole that allows one to get away with an honour killing. If the family hires another member of their family to kill their daughter and subsequently forgives the killer then doesn't that mean the killer will go free? I thought about this for a while and it made sense so I was wondering if anyone knows if there are any clauses or rules under Shariah that would prevent this from taking place.

This is a unique case. The Islamic judge will create a new legal precedent for this case.

 

[Lynx]

This also seemed odd to me. You are a self-confessed atheist and don't appear to be interested in Islam in anything other than an argumentative capacity, so why would you be eager to contact a scholar for a law which should be irrelevant to you. I don't have much knowledge on Amish marriage laws but I also wouldn't want to find out about them. Please don't take offence, although I hope you at least see my point.

I don't know if you have someone else in mind but I have never 'confessed' to be an atheist because I am not an atheist. I also happen to think arguing is the best way of learning

Anyone with clear mind and understanding of the Qur'an would have no issue with it all. Only an atheist who can't read the Qur'an and tries hard to pick up "issues" from anti muslims sites would concoct ideas that they got lost in them.

As muslims we take the Qur'an as whole and we implement it with sunnah as guidance, we don't pick and choose verses what suit us.

In your "situation", the family who hires the killer would be considered as murderer in the case too in shariah law, and that makes the principle of qisas off (they lost the right to qisas or blood money as being the murderers).

Um I don't read anti Muslim websites; they don't make for quality reading material and their main aim, as I see it, is to spread their hatred.

In any case, the general consensus in this thread seems to be that the judge in the given situation can give a legal punishment for the act of plotting to kill a family member. I take from this that Shariah is not black and white and the deliberation of judges is very important in determining odd situations like the one I presented. That's fair enough in the case where the family member hires an assassin.

Here's a follow up question: what if there is no conspiracy to kill the daughter; a family member just takes initiative and kills the daughter (let's say it's the dad) and all the male relatives (or whoever) are okay with it because they come from an area where this sort of thing is respected. The important thing to note in this modified situation is that there is a genuine forgiveness for the killer and it was not pre-planned (nor did any conspiracy take place).

I am not trying to split hairs here. I think through argument all sides of an issue can be brought out and rigorously scrutinized. Even if no body in the argument changes their mind afterwards, at the very least, everyone's been exposed to the opposite side which might develop into something significant years down the road.


@peaceandlove: your answer would work if you can provide some sort of source showing that the judges have the authority to reject the forgiveness

@Lily
You can start a new thread entitled "the religious beliefs (or lack of) of Lynx" and I will be glad to answer your question. For now it is irrelevant We can also discuss that whole wahabi thing

 

[Lynx]

Asalaamu Alaikum(peace be with you),

I am extremely sure that someone who Murders the daughter of the family (who is also apart of the family) can't be forgiven if his/her own family forgive them. I'm sure Judges aren't that stupid to let anything like that ever happen.

Although I am unlearned about these things, maybe you can try to relate the following situations;

1. Abortion (you can't do this in Islam, if someone does this, do you think they can say "we forgive the mother")?
2. Child burying (This happened alot in pre-Islam, especially to daughters as they were then considered weak and a burden. Do you think if they did that today, they would be forgiven by saying "our family forgives our own actions"?)

I understand what you're getting at and the answer to those questions might answer the question I have brought up so I really don't know what to say. Incidentally, there was a member here (who said he was Muslim) named Karl who maintained the parents have the right to kill their own children if they pay themselves the blood money. He felt that Islam made it so that children are the private property of their parents. Unless there are answers and guidelines for situations like this I think either a) judges will have too much power to basically do what they want or b) the murder laws need to be in full control of the state so that no matter what the family wants (except in manslaughter) the state must follow through with certain punishments.

 

[aadil77]

I understand what you're getting at and the answer to those questions might answer the question I have brought up so I really don't know what to say. Incidentally, there was a member here (who said he was Muslim) named Karl who maintained the parents have the right to kill their own children if they pay themselves the blood money. He felt that Islam made it so that children are the private property of their parents. Unless there are answers and guidelines for situations like this I think either a) judges will have too much power to basically do what they want or b) the murder laws need to be in full control of the state so that no matter what the family wants (except in manslaughter) the state must follow through with certain punishments.

To me these issues you bring up are trivial, thats because I know that no one can recieve true justice in this world - even the death penalty in some cases is not enough. I believe true justice will be served in the next life.

You bring up these issues because you don't believe in an afterlife where mankind will be judged, what I see is that even if there were any 'loopholes' where it would seem that people can get away without punishment; I know that at the end of the day god will know their intentions and they will get what they've earnt at some point.

Many people have escaped punishments, have gotten away with evil in non-sharia courts.

 

[GuestFellow]

Unless there are answers and guidelines for situations like this I think either a) judges will have too much power to basically do what they want or b) the murder laws need to be in full control of the state so that no matter what the family wants (except in manslaughter) the state must follow through with certain punishments.

Islamic Law: Myths and Realities

I think this will be applied but I'm not sure:

The third element of Shar'iah Law is known as the Ijma. The Muslim religion uses the term Ulama as a label for its religious scholars. These Ulama's are consulted on many matters both personal and political. When the Ulama's reach a consensus on an issue, it is interpreted as Ijma. The concepts and ideas found in the Ijma are not found explicitly in the Qur’an or the teachings of the Prophet (Sunna). Islamic judges are able to examine the Ijma for many possible solutions which can be applied in a modern technical society. They are free to create new and innovative methods to solve crime and social problems based upon the concepts found in the Ijma.These judges have great discretion in applying the concepts to a specific problem.

 

[Dagless]

I don't know if you have someone else in mind but I have never 'confessed' to be an atheist because I am not an atheist. I also happen to think arguing is the best way of learning

Your threads indicate otherwise. Arguing about concepts is one thing; not accepting answers when given and trying to nitpick at non-issues is another.

Here's a follow up question: what if there is no conspiracy to kill the daughter; a family member just takes initiative and kills the daughter (let's say it's the dad) and all the male relatives (or whoever) are okay with it because they come from an area where this sort of thing is respected. The important thing to note in this modified situation is that there is a genuine forgiveness for the killer and it was not pre-planned (nor did any conspiracy take place).

This is a prime example of what I've said above. You have been given a logical answer for your query but now you've decided to go into random what if's. You can do that with anything. What if someone is killed in New York and the killer wears gloves, what if a room full of people see him but don't want to testify, what if they don't care or are paid off, what if the killer is the secret brother of the judge who is trying the case but nobody knows apart from them.

Your initial question has been more than answered.

 

[Lynx]

Your threads indicate otherwise. Arguing about concepts is one thing; not accepting answers when given and trying to nitpick at non-issues is another.




This is a prime example of what I've said above. You have been given a logical answer for your query but now you've decided to go into random what if's. You can do that with anything. What if someone is killed in New York and the killer wears gloves, what if a room full of people see him but don't want to testify, what if they don't care or are paid off, what if the killer is the secret brother of the judge who is trying the case but nobody knows apart from them.

Your initial question has been more than answered.

First, if you think I don't accept logical answers then you are free to leave the discussion whenever you want. Pestering me about my own threads is annoying as I obviously don't think anyone has answered satisfactorily (well that's not true since I've accepted the answer for my previous situation; hence I created another hypothetical). Second, what you think is implied by my threads is far far away from 'confessions' of any kind.

Anyway, here's the problem with what you're saying. The examples you brought up (besides the gloves one) have a simple answer: the killer will get away. Unfortunately there is nothing anyone can do in those situations to bring the killer the justice if he manages to bribe everyone involved to the point where no one is going to do anything (I gues kings and the like can do that); however, in the situation brought up the OP the failing is in the system itself, don't you think? If all it takes is forgiveness by the family to let a killer go then I can't help but think there's something wrong with the legal system within Shariah. This seems like such an obvious problem that there must be some other clause to make it less like tribal justice.

Oh and this stuff happens all the time in many parts of the world


@GuestFellow

Correct me if I am wrong but the ijma of the ulama cannot go against rights given in the Quran or by the Prophet. It would seem that the only way out (in the case of the second situation) is to disregard what the Prophet said...

@aadil
I understand that in a greater court of God people will be brought to some divine justice. I am only talking about the application of real world laws.

 

[Zafran]

Theres a few problems here

1 - Getting a single hadith and making a ruling on it is crazy especially if you dont even know how the hadith works - Just to add we take hadiths from qualified people who have Ijazah to teach that hadith - we dont take it from non muslim or muslim laymen who havent got a clue about the hadith except from Google or some random books.
2 - the main purpose of the shariah is to obey God - if your sceptical about God clearly you wont understand shariah
3 - You' ll have to prove that the family was involved with the murderer just like adultery or stealing - we dont just magically know what peoples plans are. If they are found guilty through proof then its up to the Judge to decide the punishment in a fair trial.

 

[Dagless]

Anyway, here's the problem with what you're saying. The examples you brought up (besides the gloves one) have a simple answer: the killer will get away. Unfortunately there is nothing anyone can do in those situations to bring the killer the justice if he manages to bribe everyone involved to the point where no one is going to do anything (I gues kings and the like can do that); however, in the situation brought up the OP the failing is in the system itself, don't you think? If all it takes is forgiveness by the family to let a killer go then I can't help but think there's something wrong with the legal system within Shariah. This seems like such an obvious problem that there must be some other clause to make it less like tribal justice.

The examples I've given are as believable as your example. The failing in that system would be that people are given a choice to testify or not to testify.

I cannot see a failing in the Shariah system because it's already been stated that if the person was in cahoots with the killer then they themselves would be judged. If they accept the blood money and let off the killer (but were in no way involved in the killing) then that is their right. Whether they hate their family member and love money only they themselves and God know. You cannot judge such a thing.

The same way if a man was very rich and passed away then his family would get his money. You could argue that there are people more deserving of the money than his family but that is the families right despite what you think. You can't get away from what is just by trying to bring up ever crazier scenarios.

Even the threat of there being the possibility of a life for a life is very preventative. The potential killer wouldn't know whether he may die if he dares commit a murder. That is much more of a deterrent than a few years in a jail.

 

[Ramadhan]

Correct me if I am wrong but the ijma of the ulama cannot go against rights given in the Quran or by the Prophet. It would seem that the only way out (in the case of the second situation) is to disregard what the Prophet said...

Either you are not capable of discerning what we all here have explained or you are very arrogant and have fixed idea in your mind about sharia law that you are not willing to change despite more than enough refutations and explanations given.

As I said in my previous post, we do NOT take one or two qur'an verses and apply it exclusively while disregarding the rest, and certainly NOT with one or two hadiths.

What you are doing is isolating a single hadith and try to forcibly implement it in a situation, disregarding other hadiths and qur'an.

Which is the silliest and most basic mistake a person who does not understand Islam can make.

I give you an example:
in a qur'an verse Allah SWT commands us not to perform shalah when we are drunk.
Now, if you ONLY use this verse, you may think that drinking is allowed, just do not get drunk or do not do shalah after drinking.
which is wrong, because in other verses Allah SWT says that drinking is haram. period.
So, the approach to QUr'an is totality/whole, that is why in more complicated cases we require scholars and imams or judges to derive rulings.

In your case of a father killing a daughter, it may look like he is free from punishment based on ONE hadith, but everywhere in the Qur'an and hadiths the principles of justice is so strong and pervasive (such as the verses that say murder of innocents is like murder of all humanity) that the father who killed the daughter will get punished in sharia law even though he is forgiven by all other family members.
The forgiveness from the family only free him from his mistake/debt to the family, but not to Allah SWT and to the daughter.

I am saying again, I don't get you:
you are an atheist who cannot even read the qur'an, but thinking you are an expert in Islamic sharia.

 

[aamirsaab]

....Here's a follow up question: what if there is no conspiracy to kill the daughter; a family member just takes initiative and kills the daughter (let's say it's the dad) and all the male relatives (or whoever) are okay with it because they come from an area where this sort of thing is respected. The important thing to note in this modified situation is that there is a genuine forgiveness for the killer and it was not pre-planned (nor did any conspiracy take place)....

It's still not a legal loophole because no one has been bought to trial. As far as the judge is concerned, he doesn't know this event has even occured and the only people that do are fine with it. It is basically an unreported case.

 

[Lynx]

It's still not a legal loophole because no one has been bought to trial. As far as the judge is concerned, he doesn't know this event has even occured and the only people that do are fine with it. It is basically an unreported case.

Interesting point, but if the girl stops showing up to school or they find her dead body or someone sees the killer in action or some other evidence proves the killer was part of the family then it would have to go to court, no? I don't think the family's acceptance of the murder would stop it from reaching the court unless there was a law that said if the family didn't want it to be investigated then it won't be investigated.

@naidamar

In your case of a father killing a daughter, it may look like he is free from punishment based on ONE hadith, but everywhere in the Qur'an and hadiths the principles of justice is so strong and pervasive (such as the verses that say murder of innocents is like murder of all humanity) that the father who killed the daughter will get punished in sharia law
even though he is forgiven by all other family members.

The forgiveness from the family only free him from his mistake/debt to the family, but not to Allah SWT and to the daughter.

I am talking about the real world application of this law; I am not in anyway questioning God's judgment. Your last line appears to agree with the conclusion I've drawn out in the OP, but you think it's okay because God will sort it out at the end; is that right?

I am saying again, I don't get you:
you are an atheist who cannot even read the qur'an, but thinking you are an expert in Islamic sharia.

I've already explained to Dagless that I am not an atheist. I also don't understand what you mean by 'can't read the Quran'. Do you mean I don't speak the language? Well I am pretty sure a giant portion of Muslims also don't understand the language.

I don't know what your drinking example has to do with anything I've said. The verses you guys cited talk about general principles of justice and one person pointed out that a lawful killing can only take place under 3 conditions. The question I am bringing up has to do with how to deal with a proven murderer...

@Dagless

If they accept the blood money and let off the killer (but were in no way involved in the killing) then that is their right. Whether they hate their family member and love money only they themselves and God know. You cannot judge such a thing.

So you agree then that the laws in question can allow for honour killers being let off as long as they don't plot the murder.

The same way if a man was very rich and passed away then his family would get his money. You could argue that there are people more deserving of the money than his family but that is the families right despite what you think. You can't get away from what is just by trying to bring up ever crazier scenarios.

First of all I don't bring up any crazy scenarios; this is an important topic and for all we know, and there is some material written on this, the reason why so many of these killers get away with it in places like Pakistan is because there is a religious understanding that the state has no right to interfere with a family that is okay with their daughter being killed. Second, you're right that an argument can me made about inheritance; I can argue that a person's wealth is their private property and he/she should be able to distribute that inheritance to whoever he wants, despite the stipulations set forth in the Quran. I don't understand your reason for bringing this up; please explain.

Even the threat of there being the possibility of a life for a life is very preventative. The potential killer wouldn't know whether he may die if he dares commit a murder. That is much more of a deterrent than a few years in a jail.

An even better deterrent would be if they were executed no matter what the family says.

@Zafran

1 - Getting a single hadith and making a ruling on it is crazy especially if you dont even know how the hadith works - Just to add we take hadiths from qualified people who have Ijazah to teach that hadith - we dont take it from non muslim or muslim laymen who havent got a clue about the hadith except from Google or some random books.

Google is a search engine; it can give you dubious sources and it can give you scholarly sources. You can find books written by all the famous and well known scholars of Islam and you can find stuff written by not-so-smart people. Now is it in your opinion that islam-qa is a dubious source? If so, I will find you another source since I am pretty sure the rules for punishing a murderer are well-known and accepted by all scholars.

2 - the main purpose of the shariah is to obey God - if your sceptical about God clearly you wont understand shariah

I can't imagine how one's belief in God could affect one's reading comprehension...

3 - You' ll have to prove that the family was involved with the murderer just like adultery or stealing - we dont just magically know what peoples plans are. If they are found guilty through proof then its up to the Judge to decide the punishment in a fair trial.

And what I am saying is at the end of the trial does the killer get off if the family lets him go and if so, then is it possible that the family could let themselves off if they are the killers (and let's say there was no explicit conspiracy to commit murder; the family just takes the role out of initiative).

 

[Dagless]

@DaglessSo you agree then that the laws in question can allow for honour killers being let off as long as they don't plot the murder.

If they don't plot the murder how can they be honour killers? It doesn't make sense.
Honour killing is against the law so no the law does not allow for honour killings.
Your question is basically like "if a murderer kills someone but doesn't leave any evidence behind and denies it then doesn't the law allow for murder?". The answer is no.

First of all I don't bring up any crazy scenarios; this is an important topic and for all we know, and there is some material written on this, the reason why so many of these killers get away with it in places like Pakistan is because there is a religious understanding that the state has no right to interfere with a family that is okay with their daughter being killed. Second, you're right that an argument can me made about inheritance; I can argue that a person's wealth is their private property and he/she should be able to distribute that inheritance to whoever he wants, despite the stipulations set forth in the Quran. I don't understand your reason for bringing this up; please explain.

You stated earlier than you actually didn't know about Pakistan, but here you are bringing it into the topic again. How can the cases you describe exist? let alone be a problem if the family is not indicated in the killing? If they were indicated then they would be charged. Accusing people of conspiring to kill and then saying it's a big problem in some countries like Pakistan is unacceptable without evidence (of which you have none).

The inheritance scenario was given to show that your opinion may appeal to you but may not be most just.

An even better deterrent would be if they were executed no matter what the family says.

But it may not be just.

 

[Muezzin]

And what I am saying is at the end of the trial does the killer get off if the family lets him go and if so, then is it possible that the family could let themselves off if they are the killers (and let's say there was no explicit conspiracy to commit murder; the family just takes the role out of initiative).

Perhaps your real question is 'can the judge in a sharia court choose to reject the family's forgiveness if to do otherwise would be unjust, un-Islamic or both in light of the evidence presented to him or her in a particular case?'

 

[Lynx]

If they don't plot the murder how can they be honour killers? It doesn't make sense.
Honour killing is against the law so no the law does not allow for honour killings.
Your question is basically like "if a murderer kills someone but doesn't leave any evidence behind and denies it then doesn't the law allow for murder?". The answer is no.

Not all murders are premeditated. Look, even if we say all honour killings are conspiracies, how would anyone even prove that? It would make more sense to just punish the person for the honour killing itself, don't you think?? This doesn't make any sense. Girl gets murdered; family forgives killer; judge has no evidence of any conspiracy since no body recorded the conversation; killer gets off. Compare that with: girl gets murdered; family forgives killer; judge puts killer in jail because he murdered an innocent person. I think scenario 2 does a better job at illustrating the general principles of justice mentioned so many times in the Quran.

You stated earlier than you actually didn't know about Pakistan, but here you are bringing it into the topic again. How can the cases you describe exist? let alone be a problem if the family is not indicated in the killing? If they were indicated then they would be charged. Accusing people of conspiring to kill and then saying it's a big problem in some countries like Pakistan is unacceptable without evidence (of which you have none).

Government Blamed

Many blamed the government for failing to stem this social cancer.

"The government is not serious to take any concrete step to curb this menace," Iqbal Haider, Secretary General of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), told IOL.

Haider, a former federal law minister, said that different women rights organizations had constituted a committee under his chairmanship last year, which proposed to the government declaring honor killing an "uncompromisable" crime.

"In 90 percent cases of honor killings, the culprits are close relatives (father, brother, uncle or cousin) and therefore they are easily forgiven by the family of the deceased," he noted.

"If the government is serious to curb this phenomenon, it has to repeal the clause of Wali (guardian) vis-à-vis honor killings from Pakistan Penal Code," insisted the HRC chief.


Read more: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...ews/NWELayout&cid=1168265536796#ixzz19YK3f1F5

The inheritance scenario was given to show that your opinion may appeal to you but may not be most just.

Sure, and killing babies for no reason might be a good thing.


@Muezzin

Perhaps your real question is 'can the judge in a sharia court choose to reject the family's forgiveness if to do otherwise would be unjust, un-Islamic or both in light of the evidence presented to him or her in a particular case?'

Yes. Peaceandlove said that the judges do reserve this right but he did not provide me with a source for the claim and I have been unable to find a source either. maybe you can help If there are instances where certain laws produced paradoxical results like the murder law has in this case during the time of the 4 caliphs or the Prophets time and a principle was created allowing one to let general principles Islam override specifics in the legal code then THAT would work.

 

[aamirsaab]

Interesting point, but if the girl stops showing up to school or they find her dead body or someone sees the killer in action or some other evidence proves the killer was part of the family then it would have to go to court, no? I don't think the family's acceptance of the murder would stop it from reaching the court unless there was a law that said if the family didn't want it to be investigated then it won't be investigated.

Ok let's say someone outside the family notices and let's say the matter goes to court. Father is found guilty of murdering his daughter (as per your example). Now, usually in homicide cases there are 2 options: the guilty party either has to pay blood money to the deceased's family OR faces a punishment. The defendant doesn't have the option to claim blood money because they are not the family of the deceased. So the guilty party would receive whatever the punishment prescribed by the judge.

Hope that cleared it up.

 

[Dagless]

Not all murders are premeditated. Look, even if we say all honour killings are conspiracies, how would anyone even prove that? It would make more sense to just punish the person for the honour killing itself, don't you think?? This doesn't make any sense. Girl gets murdered; family forgives killer; judge has no evidence of any conspiracy since no body recorded the conversation; killer gets off. Compare that with: girl gets murdered; family forgives killer; judge puts killer in jail because he murdered an innocent person. I think scenario 2 does a better job at illustrating the general principles of justice mentioned so many times in the Quran.

er... no. The killer never gets off, if he doesn't get killed he pays money.

Government Blamed

Many blamed the government for failing to stem this social cancer.

"The government is not serious to take any concrete step to curb this menace," Iqbal Haider, Secretary General of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), told IOL.

Haider, a former federal law minister, said that different women rights organizations had constituted a committee under his chairmanship last year, which proposed to the government declaring honor killing an "uncompromisable" crime.

"In 90 percent cases of honor killings, the culprits are close relatives (father, brother, uncle or cousin) and therefore they are easily forgiven by the family of the deceased," he noted.

"If the government is serious to curb this phenomenon, it has to repeal the clause of Wali (guardian) vis-à-vis honor killings from Pakistan Penal Code," insisted the HRC chief.


Read more: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...ews/NWELayout&cid=1168265536796#ixzz19YK3f1F5

That same link also says:

"Islam strictly prohibits murder and killing without legal justification," said the expert.

"The so-called honor killing is based on ignorance and disregard of morals and laws."

Some 40 Pakistani religious scholars belonging to different schools of thought have recently issued a joint fatwa against honor killings.

The issue might be with enforcement in the country rather than the law. This is only one article though.

Sure, and killing babies for no reason might be a good thing.

Not sure where that came from :S

Yes. Peaceandlove said that the judges do reserve this right but he did not provide me with a source for the claim and I have been unable to find a source either. maybe you can help If there are instances where certain laws produced paradoxical results like the murder law has in this case during the time of the 4 caliphs or the Prophets time and a principle was created allowing one to let general principles Islam override specifics in the legal code then THAT would work.

You're saying reserve the right to dish out the death penalty on a whim? The judge would need strong evidence for something like that, and the scenario you suggest has none.