What's new

Islam and punishment

VCheng

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
48,460
Reaction score
57
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
It is often stridently claimed that the gruesome punishments being handed out by IS are not Islamic, but is that really true? This article looks at the issue, and it should make for a good discussion:

http://www.economist.com/news/inter...ishments-are-more-prevalent-muslim-world-book

Islam and punishment
By the book
Why harsh punishments are more prevalent in the Muslim world
From the print edition

20150704_IRP002_0.jpg

Cruel, but not unusual

MUSLIMS the world over are horrified by the executions carried out by Islamic State (IS) in the name of their religion. On June 28th the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an NGO based in Britain, said it knew of more than 3,000 in the past year. More than half were of civilians—and 74, of children. Yet the self-declared caliphate is not the only Muslim “state” keen on the death penalty and other brutal punishments. At least nine countries have stoning as a judicial sentence, and five have amputation. All are Islamic.

Why? Islam’s sacred texts are not more bloodthirsty than those of Judaism or Christianity. The Old Testament names 36 misdeeds, including using magic and striking a parent, as meriting death; the Koran just two: hiraba (“spreading mischief”) and murder. It says that the family of a murder victim may forgive and therefore spare the killer. Death, stoning, amputation and lashes are reserved for a small number of serious crimes, including theft and adultery, collectively known as hudud.

Under the Ottoman empire, just one person was stoned to death in 600 years. But since the early 1970s, when only Saudi Arabia ruled according to the Koran, the trend has been for ever-harsher punishments. In 1979 post-revolutionary Iran brought in sharia (Islamic law); Pakistan, Afghanistan and Sudan soon followed. In 2014 Brunei introduced a strict sharia code; Malaysia’s opposition wants to see hudud laws enforced. “Spreading mischief”, literally meaning “waging death against Allah and his angels”, is generally now taken to include homosexuality and apostasy. Such definition-stretching is possible since Islamic law relies on not only the Koran, but also thousands of hadith—supposed sayings and doings of the Prophet Muhammad—and later scholarship. For some crimes, judges can choose to order whippings and the like, even if the Koran does not insist on it—and many do.

The intertwining of state and religion is only a partial explanation. Though all Muslim countries mention Islam in their constitutions, they differ in the weight they give it. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan regard it as the only source of law. But far more pick and mix. Egypt’s criminal code is inspired by those of Britain and France. Across much of Iraq, tribal law holds sway.

A bigger reason for reliance on bloody sentences, often carried out in public, is the instability that plagues the Islamic world. “Governments tend to use Islamic law according to their interests,” says Ahmed Taleb, a cleric in Lebanon. An ongoing flurry of death sentences in Egypt targets the Muslim Brotherhood, the main opposition. The Saudi regime must curry favour with hardline clerics, who prop it up. Jordan and Pakistan recently revived the death penalty in response to growing insecurity: Jordan after IS burned to death a pilot who crashed in Syria; Pakistan after the Taliban slaughtered children in a school.

Reformist scholars point to Koranic verses and hadith in favour of mercy, and the strict conditions set for the harshest punishments. A conviction for adultery, for example, requires eyewitness testimony from four male Muslims—a high bar. They argue that the use of religion to cloak political decisions is distorting Islam to such an extent that some rulings contradict the Koran. Today adultery is punishable by stoning, whereas the Koran prescribes 100 lashes—and 80 lashes for falsely accusing another. According to Sadakat Kadri, a barrister in London who studies Islamic law, in the seventh century, when Islam was founded, that was rather progressive.

Others argue that interpretation needs to move with the times. “History shows that the penalty is related to the circumstances of the society,” says Hossam Mekawy, an Egyptian judge. But public opinion, as well as hardline clerics, makes talk of reform difficult: a Pew survey in 2013 found that many Muslims in South Asia, the Middle East and north Africa favoured cutting off thieves’ hands and executing apostates. Governments who ease up do so de facto rather than de jure: Iran imposed a moratorium on stoning for adultery, for instance, rather than getting rid of it.

Liberal lawyers in Saudi Arabia want more penalties codified to stop judges using harsher sentences than prescribed: more than half of this year’s death sentences have been for crimes for which other sentences were available. Still, as a lawyer in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, points out, that brings you only so far. “It’s impossible to get away from the fact that the current jurisprudence says lashes, stoning and the death penalty are required in certain cases,” he says. Without open debate about crime and punishment within the Islamic world, the killing and maiming will continue.

From the print edition: International
 
. .
And here I thought religious debates were not allowed :unsure:

Apparently selected people are allowed to open and discuss or bash :enjoy:

The discussion should be about punishment, not about religion. However, management are of course free and entitled to close or delete this thread if they so wish.
 
.
should be about punishment,
If that is the case shouldnt you also put in other punishment systems? But it is ONLY about punishment as per Islam or as what is happening in Muslim countries....Again key word Islam not punishment...

Because if it was punishment we would have Abu Ghraib prison or guantanamo bay detention camps coz those are also giving "punishment" and not related to religion ...Another part you didnt touch was Norway's prison for "punishing" with posh life...So if you are poor get Norwegian citizenship and murder few people you will instantly get a lovely home and the best facilities all free of charge :tup:

Or maybe you should also talk about American police and their punishment styles- you know shoot first ask later unless its a white killing coz of hate crime then dont even need to cuff him
 
.
If that is the case shouldnt you also put in other punishment systems? But it is ONLY about punishment as per Islam or as what is happening in Muslim countries....Again key word Islam not punishment...

Because if it was punishment we would have Abu Ghraib prison or guantanamo bay detention camps coz those are also giving "punishment" and not related to religion ...Another part you didnt touch was Norway's prison for "punishing" with posh life...So if you are poor get Norwegian citizenship and murder few people you will instantly get a lovely home and the best facilities all free of charge :tup:

Or maybe you should also talk about American police and their punishment styles- you know shoot first ask later unless its a white killing coz of hate crime then dont even need to cuff him

As the article says:

"Why? Islam’s sacred texts are not more bloodthirsty than those of Judaism or Christianity. The Old Testament names 36 misdeeds, including using magic and striking a parent, as meriting death; the Koran just two: hiraba (“spreading mischief”) and murder. It says that the family of a murder victim may forgive and therefore spare the killer. Death, stoning, amputation and lashes are reserved for a small number of serious crimes, including theft and adultery, collectively known as hudud.

The discussion is about whether such religiously mandated punishments are to be implemented or not in the 21st century.
 
. . . .
As the article says:

"Why? Islam’s sacred texts are not more bloodthirsty than those of Judaism or Christianity. The Old Testament names 36 misdeeds, including using magic and striking a parent, as meriting death; the Koran just two: hiraba (“spreading mischief”) and murder. It says that the family of a murder victim may forgive and therefore spare the killer. Death, stoning, amputation and lashes are reserved for a small number of serious crimes, including theft and adultery, collectively known as hudud.

The discussion is about whether such religiously mandated punishments are to be implemented or not in the 21st century.

The answer is NO. This question would only be applicable if the state decides to go down the route of being actively "Islamic" as opposed to just using the "Islamic" as nomenclature. Then of course Sharia law would have to be enforced by the state.

For me it is simple. Since I am a proponent of secular state. This means the separation of state and religion. I am not a hypocrite because I also chose to live in a state that is de facto secular. That is UK. So there is no contradiction in my views and the law that I elect to live under.
 
.
The answer is NO. This question would only be applicable if the state decides to go down the route of being actively "Islamic" as opposed to just using the "Islamic" as nomenclature. Then of course Sharia law would have to be enforced by the state.

For me it is simple. Since I am a proponent of secular state. This means the separation of state and religion. I am not a hypocrite because I also chose to live in a state that is de facto secular. That is UK. So there is no contradiction in my views and the law that I elect to live under.

Because you are lucky enough to have a choice of where you chose to live. Hundreds of millions of people do not have that luxury.
 
.
@TankMan @syedali73 You both have more knowledge on the issue at hand. Inputs?

Under the Ottoman empire, just one person was stoned to death in 600 years.
Under the Ottoman Caliphate, even homosexuality was decriminalised long before Western liberals had any idea what happened. Its demise is the main reason why we have to deal with radical extremist nutcases today:
But a paper by Ishtiaq Hussain, published by Faith Matters on Saturday displays a very different picture. Ottoman sultans, or caliphs, in the 18th and 19th centuries launched secular schools and promoted the education of women. The period of reformation known as the Tanzimat saw customary and religious laws being replaced in favour of secular European ones. More surprisingly, homosexuality was decriminalised in 1858 (long before many western states took their cue, and over a century before the American Psychiatric Association declassified it as a mental illness in 1973). Contrary to the claims of hardline groups, religious authorities approved many of these measures.
The Ottoman empire's secular history undermines sharia claims | Tehmina Kazi | Comment is free | The Guardian
 
.
Under the Ottoman empire, just one person was stoned to death in 600 years. But since the early 1970s, when only Saudi Arabia ruled according to the Koran, the trend has been for ever-harsher punishments. In 1979 post-revolutionary Iran brought in sharia (Islamic law); Pakistan, Afghanistan and Sudan soon followed.

Whilst I would not be that flattering of the Ottomans and their religious implementations.The issue of punishment has much more to do with the cultural interpretations of the locals and less to do with the actual requirements within the primary text itself.
 
.
Because you are lucky enough to have a choice of where you chose to live. Hundreds of millions of people do not have that luxury.

I think you by passed the point Syed. Some of the most die hard fanatics who go into frenzy at the mention of "secularism" are Muslim who live in the West. I always can never get over how these people can oppose secularism yet at the very same time find no problems in living in secular societies of the West.

Surely if secularism is inimical to Islam and Muslims that applies in Pakistan or the West. If they ( Muslims ) can happily live in secular London, Paris or Washington surely why can't the Muslims in Lahore also live with secularism ?

This paradox has not been explained by anybody to me. This question I poise fits in your thread because thee is interlinkage between both.
 
.
Whilst I would not be that flattering of the Ottomans and their religious implementations.The issue of punishment has much more to do with the cultural interpretations of the locals and less to do with the actual requirements within the primary text itself.

As the article says, the Quran is actually a far more benevolent text than the other major scriptures. And yet, it is the Muslim countries where the punishments are the more strict and indeed horrific. So it must be the cultural interpretations, as you put it, that are contributing to this situation. The question to ask is this: Should this be changed, and if so, how?

I think you by passed the point Syed. Some of the most die hard fanatics who go into frenzy at the mention of "secularism" are Muslim who live in the West. I always can never get over how these people can oppose secularism yet at the very same time find no problems in living in secular societies of the West.

Surely if secularism is inimical to Islam and Muslims that applies in Pakistan or the West. If they ( Muslims ) can happily live in secular London, Paris or Washington surely why can'ty Muslims in Lahore also live with secularism ?

This paradox has not been explained by anybody to me. This question I poise fits in your thread because thee is interlinkage between both.

There is no paradox in what you observe. It is called hypocrisy, plain and simple. And the right wing radicals have refined it into almost an art form, here on PDF and in real life too.
 
.
There is no paradox in what you observe. It is called hypocrisy, plain and simple. And the right wing radicals have refined it into almost an art form, here on PDF and in real life too.

Agreed. But we need to corner some and squeeze and dribble some of that hypocracy out of them .... ha ha ha

Ps. That's what I meant when I said we have 2.5 million reasons in UK that support secularism !!!
 
.
Back
Top Bottom