At 04:36 PM 12/25/2012, [email protected] wrote:
Lomax,
Thanks for answer. Next, is amputation prevalent in Sharia Law nations? Ref:
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1895&CATE=12
Student
Noting the trolling name, and here in OT land, and noting that I'm
not an expert on All Things Islamic, and that the question asks me
about present legal realities, when my interest has generally been in
Islam as a system of practice, and what are called Hudud, the
"punishments" are not a practical question unless one has sovereign
power, obviously the question of "cut off the hand of the thief" has
come up before for me, it almost always does when there are
"students" like our mole4lenr.
First of all, the page in question is not about the prevalence of
amputation. It's about Shari'a. Some countries naively implement
Shari'a law as if it were legislation, which is a misunderstanding,
though sometimes politically popular. Shari'a is a *path* (or "road,"
that's what the word means) to judgment.
The page in question first cites the verse on qisaas, which is a bit
frustrating, because they don't complete the verse. Qisaas, they
translate as "retaliation," is a balancing, and the verse describes
compensation, and forbids going beyond limits. Compensation -- or
qisaas itself -- is described as a "mercy," and the verse forbids
"going beyond limits." I.e., qisaas is a *limit*, not a command.
This is, again, a Shafi'i page, apparently associated with Nuh Keller.
The page then describes the *conditions* for the prescribed
punishment for theft. It weirdly mentions the amputation of the
"arm," which is an interpretation I've never seen.
It does *not* describe very important conditions that would be
essential in a real situation. Basically, we have, here, someone
issuing what could be seen as a legal opinion that is not like a
legal opinion, it's in the abstract, and it doesn't deal with all the
necessary conditions. Really, how I read this is an attempt to
establish that cutting off of the hand of the thief is "reasonable."
And Muslim apologists do that.
Including me. That was *not* the question, but I'll do it, briefly.
To my knowledge, one of the few significant places where literal
amputation is practiced is Saudi Arabia. I have little admiration for
the Saudis, and there are some stories of astonishing cruelty around
this very issue (where a judge ordered amputation under conditions
that fell far short of what the web page describes. Nothing had been
stolen. But *maybe* the person had attempted to find out if there was
something worth stealing. Not finding it, he reported the bag of
stuff. And had his hand cut off.) But they do, very publicly, cut off
the hands of thieves. And they have very little theft, apparently.
I've never been there, but I've heard many stories, you can
apparently leave valuables out in the open, unprotected, and they
stay put. An American Muslim was walking by a table with maybe
$40,000 in U.S. dollars on it, and plenty of other currency, and the
man, who did not know him, asked him if he'd stay there while he went
to pray, to tell people he'd be back soon, like maybe ten minutes.
Apparently there was no fear that he'd walk off with the money.
I also have been a chaplain at San Quentin State Prison, and see how
*we* treat thieves. I'm not 100% convinced, shall we say, that our
way is better. In any case, prison was not an option under tribal
law. What was the punishment for theft in England, not so long ago?
Death. Any felony carried the death penalty.
Prison was reserved for the elite, for high-social-value prisoners.
Prison is *expensive.*
One more comment: the Qur'anic verse can be satisfied with preventing
theft. That is one meaning of "cut off the hand."
http://www.misconceptions-about-islam.com/cut-off-hands-theft.htm But
this is not the majority view. (And there are plenty of Muslim sites
where isolated opinion is presented as "the real Islam." Hey, aren't
there Christians who do that too?
One more point: the Qur'an implies that the punishment is not to be
applied if the person "turns" from crime. That is apparently
implemented in Iranian consideration of this punishment. But I don't
know, and the *actual practice* of what are often vicious repressive
regimes can be very different from what is normative.
Now, to the question. I know of Saudi Arabia, and there are
periodically moves to implement "Shari'a law" in places around the
world, usually as part of some "popular Islam" movement -- which
usually means pandering to the most ignorant elements of the society.
It's quite like certain phenomena in the U.S., which can appeal to
the *worst* of Christianity.
There are stories of thieves having their hands cut off by various
groups that do *not* have sovereignty. That's assault, under any law.
The Qur'anic verse does not grant rebels and bandits the authority to
implement justice through punishment. Of course, bandits and rebels
may disagree! This whole issue of groups who think the government is
corrupt and that therefore they can take the law into their own hands
has afflicted Islam from the early days, when the Khawaarij not only
killed many people for disagreeing with them, they killed 'Uthman,
the third khalif, and 'Ali, the fourth, and tried to kill Mu'awiya
(the strong-man ruler with whom 'Ali had made peace -- they condemned
'Ali for "compromising Islam," so they plotted to kill both, and only
succeeded with 'Ali, who was probably less defended. That is, the
puritans destroyed the original khalifate, based on community
consensus, giving power to mere power. In the name of "Islam," they
killed the son-in-law of the Prophet. It is amazing what people will
do, and yet think themselves perfectly right and justified. Think
"al-Qa'ida" and 9/11/2001. But also think of Oklahoma and Timothy
McVeigh, think of the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, and on and on.)
In any case, on our topic here, there is this article:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/topic,4565c2252,45d0822f2,478b625016062,0.html
The article is about an incident of amputation in the Islamic
Republic of Iran. It does not appear to be ordinary policy there, and
apparently Iranians were horrified. The article calls it
"seldom-used." That's an indication of a severe problem. Cutting off
of the hand is described in Qur'an as "exemplary," i.e., intended to
warn. If this were done with the sanction of the government, it would
be made clear that it was going to happen routinely, *first.* In a
modern country, it would be incorporated in specific legislation,
published, with rules about who could decide to do it, exceptions,
etc. No, this looks like an isolated decision someone made. This was
at the beginning of 2008.
From that article:
Amputation as legal punishment is still practiced in a number of
countries, among them Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Islamic
regions of Nigeria. They were also common in Afghanistan under the
Taliban. Parts of sub-Saharan West Africa have also recently
witnessed amputations as a form of intimidation used by various
political factions.
For a time, the Taliban had some kind of governmental authority. But,
ah, they lost it, and justly so. They were vicious, but they were
sometimes less vicious than those they kicked out. They paid zero
attention to what Muslim scholars from around the world told them.
They were, in fact, "students." Hey, "student," know any Talibs?
Arrogant students, who thought they knew more than everyone else, and
were willing to kill for it.
What rebels in Africa do is not relevant to Islamic law, which
generally prohibits rebellion (complicated issue, I won't go there now).
So we are looking at the Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and "Islamic
regions of Nigeria." That is a very small part of the Muslim world.
Perhaps the "student" wants to know my opinion. It's pretty much that
of the majority of modern Muslims.
1. Strict and certain punishments (i.e. to be expected) that don't
involve imprisonment were appropriate for tribal conditions, i.e.,
where there is no established government, the people are
self-governing, by custom.
2. Those conditions only exist today transiently, and the purpose of
the strict punishments is not served by implementation under
transient conditions. But I won't judge what people do under dire
necessity. When governmental order is restored, if people acted in
the best interests of society, error might be forgiven. My general
opinion is that there is no place in the world now where cutting off
the hand of the thief, literally, is justified.
3. Nevertheless, the setting of local legislation and process, which
includes the punishment for crimes, is a sovereign right.
4. In the other direction, increasingly, there are international
standards governing limits on what governments can do, and I support these.
5. It's obvious that Muslim-majority nations, in general, do not
implement amputation as a punishment for theft. Under modern
conditions, that's appropriate.
