Completely Irrelevant. Okay, so her Parents are responsible for her murder & just because they say that they forgive the killer in the name of Allah, it doesn't mean that the murder is justifiable, similarly if some murderer justifies his killing in the name of Allah doesn't provide a vindication to target the religion. Like i said earlier it's the people themselves who bend & twist rules to accommodate their wishes, it has nothing to do with Islam.
I did not state that it was somehow justifiable, I just said that the orthodox interpretation of Diyat allows the
wali to forgive in the name of Allah without facing any punishment, even the
Fasad fil Arz punishment. The orthodox interpretation also has resulted in such a freed person not even being labeled "convict" legally. Legal conviction means becoming ineligible for many things including government service. Hence a person walks away without any social stigma associated as well.
You have clearly never read Islamic Jurisprudence in this regard and therefore misunderstood my remarks. As you have clearly a lax understanding of the law and utilizing the "I believe it and therefore it must be perfectly right" kind of argument, I'll avoid commenting any further.
The act of pardoning doesn't only thrive in Islamic law.
I was not concerned with pardoning here rather showing you how a family got their daughter murdered and got away with it using Islamic law. Most jurists today call for overhauling Qisas and Diyat in line with modern demands since the introduction of Diyat had much to do with alleviating Arab hatreds and the modern day application of 8th century interpretations leads to acquittals and deprives the society of providing any the three necessities of justice i.e. retribution, rehabilitation and deterrence. In those times, exile was a severe punishment and today it is infeasible and a useless punishment. Just like that, Diyat laws need to be interpreted my Islamic jurists and many have come to the conclusion that the complexities of today demand that crime is twofold i.e. crime towards person and crimes towards society. A murder like that of Saima Sarwar should fall into the category of crime against society for which there should be no pardon as there is no deterrence if the murderer is forgiven and he simply walks away with the crime. I can search through documents, but I'm pretty sure there was a hitman either in Lahore or Kasur who was "forgiven" in more than 6 cases involving nearly a dozen murderers. Hired by relatives who would end up as walis, he could be forgiven in the name of Allah and hired to kill someone else, they walis could be forced to forgive in the name of Allah. The Judge in one case had written such a scathing judgment that one could literally read his rage.
The introduction of Qisas and Diyat Laws have destroyed the criminal justice system, after the Hudood Laws started its destruction.
83% of murder trials have resulted in "Razinamas". This means that 83% of real killers roam the streets without any social stigma attached to them and because the orthodox interpretation of Islam does not label the person who goes free under diyat as a "convict", he roams free in every possible way. Society has changed from the small communities of Arabia but our peanut brains are yet to accept this fact.
Since the advent of Qisas and Diyat laws in 1990, conviction rate at trial stage has dropped from 29% to 12%. Conviction in SC at appeal level has dropped from 79% to 35%. Self cancellation of cases has increased from 4% to 11%. Homicide rate has gone up from 5 per 100,000 to 9 per 100,000. 7% of cases withdrawn after "razinamas" involved trading girls as compensation. No single case since the introduction of the laws has been convicted under Qatl-i-amd liable to Hadd.
Razinamas are controlled demolitions of the system of criminal justice.
However, since their introduction, conviction rates have decreased immensely. Most apologists here would argue with their usual illiteracy that the "true law is not being applied. Their are loopholes and gaps, while true law has none and therefore will magically result in a 100% conviction rate and free and perfect justice".
The criminal justice system has been destroyed precisely by the introduction of these laws which were supposed to help the society. Even then the jurists had pointed out that these orthodox interpretations had absolutely no grounds for application in a modern society and its challenges. Diyat would have been an acceptable solution in tribal Arabia as it sought elimination of long standing enmities. Today, Diyat means a system of justice that is biased and is clearly elitist is nature. A justice system biased towards the elite cannot work. Diyat also allows criminals to roam free without stigma. Societies aren't small anymore where everybody knows you. You can migrate between cities. In 8th century Arabia, everybody knew you and migrating out of the clan was not an option.
Anybody willing to study the effects of Qisas and Diyat Laws should read the book " The Application of Islamic Criminal Law in Pakistan : Sharia in Practice". It has been written by somebody who is sympathetic to the system of Islamic Justice and extensively covers its historical grounds, both in Arabia and this region and basis his opinion on contemporary opinions of Islamic jurists.
His conclusions are clear, the system of Qisas and Diyat needs a revolutionary change to be applicable in a modern society and it has failed to cover any one of the three aspects of criminal justice, namely, rehabilitation, deterrence and retribution. The principles of Islamic jurisprudence demand not just following the letter of law handed by 8th century interpretations, but following the principles. The principles deem murder and rape as crimes liable to a death punishment. These were being followed before the introduction of the Hudood and Qisas and Diyat Laws.
i know you will see my post as religious victimization as i highlighted the flaws of those who are lets just say not Muslims, If only we had better arbitrators to resolve such cases world would be a better place to live in.
I don't see it as a cross religious comparison. But the second statement is just what I said, the usual "not true Islamic law", "intentions are not right" argument which comes from most people who are illiterate about a subject. If you have belief that your believes are based on a system of perfect justice that can magically do no wrong, then I'm happy for you but don't use this pathetic, frequently used and hollow argument. It is not a convincing argument in any scenario.
