Print Page | Close Window

18th question about islam

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Islam for non-Muslims
Forum Discription: Non-Muslims can ask questions about Islam, discussion for the purpose of learning.
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12439
Printed Date: 24 November 2014 at 1:58pm


Topic: 18th question about islam
Posted By: Tariq
Subject: 18th question about islam
Date Posted: 12 May 2008 at 5:58am

18. ALL RELIGIONS TEACH PEOPLE TO BE
RIGHTEOUS, THEN WHY FOLLOW ONLY
ISLAM?
Question

All religions basically teach followers to do good deeds. Why should a person
only follow Islam? Can he not follow any of the religions?

Answer

1. Major difference between Islam and most other religions
All religions basically exhort mankind to be righteous and eschew evil. But Islam
goes beyond that. It guides us towards practical ways of achieving
righteousness and eliminating evil from our individual and collective lives. Islam
takes into account human nature and the complexities of human society. Islam
is guidance from the Creator Himself. Therefore, Islam is also called the Deenul-
Fitrah (the natural religion of Man).

43

* For more Queries contact: mailto:webmaster@irf.net - webmaster@irf.net

ISLAMIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION

 



.
.

  

 .
       
.

 
 
  
  .


2. Example - Islam commands us to shun robbery and also
prescribes method of eli-minating robbery
a. Islam prescribes method of eliminating robbery
All major religions teach that theft is an evil act. Islam teaches the same. So
what is the difference between Islam and the other religions? The difference
lies in the fact that Islam, besides teaching that robbing is evil, shows a
practical way of creating a social structure in which people will not rob.

b. Islam prescribes Zakat
Islam prescribes a system of Zakat (obligatory annual charity). Islamic law
prescribes that every person who has a saving that exceeds the nisab level

i.e. more than 85 grams of gold, should give 2.5% of that saving every lunar
year in charity. If every rich person in the world gave Zakat sincerely,
poverty will be eradicated from this world. Not a single human being would
die of hunger.
c. Chopping off the hands as punishment for robbery
Islam prescribes chopping off the hands of the convicted robber. The
Glorious Qur’an says in Surah Maidah:

“As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hands:a punishment
by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in
power, full of wisdom.” [ Al-Qur’an 5:38]

The non-Muslim may say, “Chopping off the hands in this 20th century.
Islam is a barbaric and ruthless religion!”

d. Results achieved when Islamic Shariah Implemented
America is supposed to be one of the most advanced countries in the world.
Unfortunately it also has one of the highest rates of crime, theft, and
robbery. Suppose the Islamic shariah is implemented in America i.e. every
rich person gives Zakat ( 2.5% of his savings in charity above 85 grams of
gold every lunar year), and every convicted robber has his or her hands
chopped off as a punishment. Will the rate of theft and robbery in America
increase, remain same or decrease? Naturally it will decrease. Moreover
the existence of such a stringent law would discourage many a potential
robber.

I agree that the amount of theft that takes place in the world today is so
tremendous that if you chop off the hands of all the thieves, there will be
tens of thousands of people whose hands will be chopped off. The point
here is that the moment you implement this law the rate of theft will decline
immediately. The potential robber would give it a serious thought before
jeopardizing his limbs. The mere thought of the punishment itself will
discourage majority of the robbers. There will barely be a few who would
rob. Hence only a few person’s hands would be chopped off but millions
would live peacefully without fear of being robbed.

Islamic Shariah is therefore practical, and achieves results.

44

* For more Queries contact: mailto:webmaster@irf.net - webmaster@irf.net

ISLAMIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION

 



.
.

  

 .
       
.

 
 
  
  .


3. Example: Islam prohibits the molestation and rape of women. It
enjoins hijab and prescribes capital punishment for a convicted rapist.
a. Islam prescribes method of eliminating molestation and rape
All the major religions declare the molestation and rape of women as grave
sins. Islam teaches the same. What then is the difference between Islam and
the other religions? The difference lies in the fact that Islam does not merely
preach respect for women, or abhor molestation and rape as serious crimes,
but also gives clear guidance as to how society can eliminate such crimes.

b. Hijab for men
Islam has a system of hijab. The Glorious Qur’an first mentions hijab for the men
and then for the women. Hijab for the men is mentioned in the following verse:

“Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard
their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: and Allah is
well acquainted with all that they do.” [Al-Qur’an 24:30]

The moment a man looks at a woman and if any brazen or unashamed
thought comes to his mind, he should lower his gaze.

c. Hijab for women
Hijab for women is mentioned in the following verse:

“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and
guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and
ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should
draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to
their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons....”

 [Al-Qur’an 24:31]

The extent of hijab for a woman is that her complete body should be
covered. The only part that can be seen, are the face and the hands up to
the wrists. If they wish to cover, they can even cover these parts of the body.
However some Islamic scholars insist that even the face should be covered.

d. Hijab prevents molestation
The reason why Allah has prescribed Hijab for the women is given in the
Qur’an in the folowing verse of Surah Al-Ahzab:

“O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing
women,that they should cast their outer garments over their persons
(when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as
such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, most Merciful.”

[Al-Qur’an 33:59]

45

* For more Queries contact: mailto:webmaster@irf.net - webmaster@irf.net

The Qur’an says that Hijab has been prescribed for the women so that they are
recognized as modest women this would prevent them from being molested.

e. Example of twin sisters
Suppose two sisters who are twins and who are equally beautiful, walk
down a street. One of them is wearing the Islamic Hijab i.e. the complete
body is covered except for the face and the hands up to the wrists, and the
other twin is wearing a mini skirt or shorts. Around the corner there is a
hooligan who is waiting for an opportunity to tease a girl. Who will he tease?
The girl wearing the Islamic Hijab or the girl wearing the mini skirt or shorts?
Dresses that expose more than they conceal, are an indirect temptation to
the opposite sex for teasing, molestation and rape. The Qur’an rightly says
that the hijab prevents women from being molested.

f. Capital punishment for rapist
The Islamic shariah prescribes capital punishment for a convicted rapist.
The non-Muslim may be horrified at such a stringent punishment in this age.
Many accuse Islam of being ruthless and barbaric. I have asked a common
question to hundreds of non-Muslim men. Suppose God-forbid, some one
rapes your wife, your mother or your sister and you are made the judge. The
rapist is brought in front of you. What punishment would you give him? All
of them said, “we would put him to death.” Some went to the extent of
saying, “we would torture him to death”, If your wife or your mother is raped
you want the rapist to be put to death. But if someone else’s wife or mother
is raped, capital punishment is a barbaric law. Why the double standards?

g. U.S.A. has one of the highest rate of Rape
The United States of America is supposed to be one of the most advanced
countries of the world. An F.B.I report in the year 1990 says that 1,02,555
cases of rape were reported. It further says that only 16% of the cases of
rapes are reported. Thus, in order to know the actual number of rapes that
took place in 1990, the reported figure should be multiplied by 6.25. We get
a total of 6,40,968 rape cases that took place in the year 1990. If the total is
divided by 365 the number of days in a year, we get an average of 1,756
rape incidents everyday.

Later another report said that an average of 1900 cases of rape are
committed in U.S.A every day. According to National Crime Victimization
Survey Bureau of Justice Statistics (U. S. Dept. of Justice) in 1996 alone
3,07,000 cases of rape were reported. Only 31% of the actual cases of rape
were reported. Thus, 3,07,000 X 3.226 = 9,90,322 rapes took place in 1996.
That is, an average of 2,713 cases of rape took place everyday in America
in 1996. Every 32 seconds one rape is taking place in America. Maybe
American rapists got bolder. The FBI report of 1990 continues and says that
out of the rape cases that were reported only 10% of the rapist were


arrested, that is only 1.6% of the actual rapes committed. Out of those
arrested, 50% were let free before the trial. This would mean that only 0.8%
of the rapists faced a trial. In other words if a person commits 125 rapes the
chances that he will get a punishment for rape is only once. Many would
consider this a good gamble. And the report says that of those people who
faced trial 50% received sentences of less than a year’s imprisonment
though the American law says rape carries a seven year sentence of
imprisonment. For a rapist, the judge is lenient to first time offenders.
Imagine a person commits 125 rapes and the chances of being convicted is
only once, and 50% of the time the judge will grant leniency and give a
sentence of less than a year!

h. Results achieved when Islamic Shariah Implemented
Suppose the Islamic shariah is implemented in America. Whenever a man
looks at a woman and if any brazen or unashamed thought comes to his
mind, he lowers his gaze. Every woman wears the Islamic Hijab, that is the
complete body is covered except the face and the hands upto the wrists.
After this if any man commits rape, he gets capital punishment. The
question is, will the rate of rape in America increase, will it remain the same
or will it decrease? Naturally it will decrease. Islamic Shariah gets results.

4. Islam has Practical Solutions for the Problems of Mankind
Islam is the best way of life because its teachings are not doctrinaire rhetoric but
practical solutions for the problems of mankind. Islam achieves results both at
the individual and collective levels. Islam is the best way of life because it is a
practical, universal religion not confined to any ethnic group or nationality.




Replies:
Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 12 May 2008 at 6:36pm

The righteous person is poor in spirit, or, he or she recognizes his or her spiritual poverty and owns that spiritual poverty.

The righteous person mourns, or, because he or she sees and owns his or her spiritual poverty, he or she is grieved because that poverty exists.

The righteous person is meek, or gentle, or under control.

The righteous person is famished for righteousness--he or she has a consuming appetite for righteousness, that is what he or she wants and wants to become.

The righteous person is merciful--the person who abuses them, or offends them, or hurts them, or treats them unjustly will receive mercy, not justice; and the righteous person will extend mercy to those who have failed.

The righteous person is devoted to developing and having a pure heart; he or she does not merely want to look pure in deeds; he or she wants to be pure within.

The righteous person is a peacemaker; he or she is the kind of person who can help those who are alienated find reconciliation.

The righteous person is willing to endure suffering and mistreatment for Jesus' sake.

Matthew 5

 3"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
      for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
 4Blessed are those who mourn,
      for they will be comforted.
 5Blessed are the meek,
      for they will inherit the earth.
 6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
      for they will be filled.
 7Blessed are the merciful,
      for they will be shown mercy.
 8Blessed are the pure in heart,
      for they will see God.
 9Blessed are the peacemakers,
      for they will be called sons of God.
 10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
      for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

 11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.



-------------
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Posted By: Tariq
Date Posted: 13 May 2008 at 9:54am
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
 
BELIEVING IS THE BASE BUT ACTUALLL Y NOT EVERTHING IF JSESUS IS CRUCIFIED ACCORDING TO CHRISTIAN BELIEF FOR THE SINS OF HUMANITY AND ONLY THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF CHRISTANITY IS REVOLVING AROND HIS REDEEMED BLODD AND SALVATION FOR TO DO EVERY THING WHAT EVER A CHRISTIAN LIKE BY JUST BELIEVEING IN JESUS AS A SALVATOR AND
SACRIFICER FOR HUMANITY
THAN WE SHOULD ALL GO TO ETERNEL LIFE AND WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO ANY THING WHICH JESUS PROHIBITED US NOT TO DO AND PROPHET MOSES AS WELL SO WHERE DO YOU PUT ALLL THE TEACHINGS OF BIBLE FROM OLD TESTEMENT AND NEW TESTEMENT FOR THE SOLUTION AND CONCORDIST APPROACH
EITHER WE BELIEVE IN HIS SALVATION FOR THE SINS OF HUMANITY OR BELIEVE THE WAYS OF THE PROPHETS, AND TEACHINGS OF BIBLE
AS MENTIONED IN BIBLE PROPHET JESUS SAID I HAVE NOT COME TO DESTROY THE WAYS OF THE PROPHETS.
WHAT DO YOU SAY ABOUT THAT?


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 13 May 2008 at 6:40pm
Originally posted by Tariq

The non-Muslim may say, “Chopping off the hands in this 20th century. Islam is a barbaric and ruthless religion!” 
That is exactly what I say; and the fact that it may reduce crime does not make it any less barbaric and ruthless.  Even without any other evidence, the cruelty throughout the Quran is enough to convince me that it did not come from a loving God.
 
I would much, much prefer to be robbed on a regular basis than to have a single thief mutilated in this way.  Frankly, I am astonished that Islam teaches that possessions are more important than mercy and forgiveness.


Posted By: seekshidayath
Date Posted: 13 May 2008 at 7:28pm
 
 Ronn, read this link. Its may consume your precious time, but am sure, insha Allah, it shall clear all your misconceptions of Islam esp about chopping hands. Read it with a clear heart and sincerly. It discusses of the philosophy and wisdom behind punishmenst in Islam
 
http://www.studying-islam.org/articletext.aspx?id=1012 - http://www.studying-islam.org/articletext.aspx?id=1012


-------------
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “All the descendants of Adam are sinners, and the best of sinners are those who repent."


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 13 May 2008 at 8:10pm
Originally posted by seekshidayath

 Ronn, read this link. Its may consume your precious time, but am sure, insha Allah, it shall clear all your misconceptions of Islam esp about chopping hands. Read it with a clear heart and sincerly. It discusses of the philosophy and wisdom behind punishmenst in Islam
 
http://www.studying-islam.org/articletext.aspx?id=1012 - http://www.studying-islam.org/articletext.aspx?id=1012
 
I skimmed your link briefly, and I'll see if I can find some time tomorrow to look at it more carefully; but so far it looks like a longer version of Tariq's article.  Really, all it's saying is that "the end justifies the means", which I find not just untrue, but cynical and morally repugnant and unworthy of a loving and omnipotent God.
 
I'd rather if you would tell me in your own words whatever argument you think might change my mind.


Posted By: Tariq
Date Posted: 14 May 2008 at 5:56am
Brother Ron i asked you something else and your criticizing other matters this is not a fair answer to previous post of mine about teachings of Bible


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 14 May 2008 at 5:48pm

Tariq, I think the question you asked was directed to "believer", not to me.



Posted By: Nausheen
Date Posted: 14 May 2008 at 11:03pm
Auzubillahi minash shaitan ir Rajeem,
Bismillah ir Rahman ir Rahim
 
 
 
Originally posted by Ron Webb

  Even without any other evidence, the cruelty throughout the Quran is enough to convince me that it did not come from a loving God.
 
 
 
 
 
The problem is not about God being a loving God ... rather the debate here is weather the Loving God is also wise and just or not.
 
For a believer (a muslim) hope and fear are like two sandals he walks on, or like two wings of a bird -  without either of which it cannot fly. We have hope of mercy from Him because He is compassionate and merciful and fear Him because He is just and has a wrath.
 
For those who cannot conceive the two attributes together in one God have a problem of understanding punishments from a god who is so loving and merciful. 
 
God has a wrath believe it or not. Only the very misfortunate are going to generate that wrath towards themselves, because He has a mercy that encompases His wrath.
 
 
 
 


-------------
Wanu nazzilu minal Qurani ma huwa
Shafaa un wa rahmatun lil mo'mineena
wa la yaziduzzalimeena illa khasara.


Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 15 May 2008 at 3:53am
I think it is really someone to put someone in a cage for 15 years for a crime. Confused What is more humane? Been to a prison lately? Not sure any punshiment is "humane" Is a long-term punsihment more humane then a swift one?  How can that be?  
 
I've seen and read too much on crime, I teach self-defense. And you cannot convince me that any punishment is 'humane."
 
People have a right to be free from predators..  There ARE bad people.


-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 15 May 2008 at 5:44am

James 2

Faith and Deeds
 14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

 18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
      Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

 19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

 20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=JAMES%202:14-26%29&version=31#fen-NIV-30298a - a ]? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

 25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

Tariq- to truly understand the Holy Bible you must read the whole thing.


-------------
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Posted By: Nausheen
Date Posted: 15 May 2008 at 6:45pm
Auzubillahi minash shaitan ir Rajeem,
Bismillah ir Rahman ir Rahim
 
 
 
 
 
Originally posted by Hayfa

 
People have a right to be free from predators..  There ARE bad people.
 
What you said reminded me of somehting I heard once from a scholar, he said, Hell fire is a whip Allah uses on his beleiving servants to make them work righteousness in this life. The idea he was explaining is that the fear of having been caste into the fire, if it is a true fear, is good enough for many of the believing men and women to stay away from deeds that may lead them into it. Thus it is not  from Allah's pleasure to caste men in fire, but the fear of His punishment may help many earn their way to paradise.
 
No punishment is humane. At the same time no trangression of His laws suite the purpose for which human beings were created. They want to act "human" and there is no limit to the act of being human, from cheating, stealing, lying ... to the most gorry acts a human being is capable of stooping to. [He created us in the best of moulds, but it is man who stoops to lowest of low - in loose translation from the Quran]
 
But Allah is pure, and accepts nothing but that which is pure, thus He has guided us in the Quran how to purify our souls so we may enter paradise ... where none shall gain entry except the pure.
 
The angels don't have the potential to trangress His laws, but humans, if they choose to do the same through their free will, they rise above the ranks of angels. So one who busies his focus on the nature of punishments prescribed by Allah - meaning a non-muslim who uses these as a plea to misunderstand Islam, may tarry for a while and think, what is better ... good pleasure of the Lord Most High, or resignation to ones "human" desires, after which one may not know if he will receive mercy or wrath...
 
 
 


-------------
Wanu nazzilu minal Qurani ma huwa
Shafaa un wa rahmatun lil mo'mineena
wa la yaziduzzalimeena illa khasara.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 15 May 2008 at 6:52pm

Originally posted by Nausheen

The problem is not about God being a loving God ... rather the debate here is weather the Loving God is also wise and just or not.

I would say that the debate is whether chopping off body parts is ever wise and just.

For those who cannot conceive the two attributes together in one God have a problem of understanding punishments from a god who is so loving and merciful.

This is not about punishments from God.  It's about punishments from men -- and more specifically about the mindset of men who can believe that God would command such atrocities.

Imagine that your wallet has been stolen, and the thief has been caught.  Don't imagine this in the abstract -- imagine the thief as a real person.  Picture his face contorted with fear, hear the anguish in his quivering voice.  Give him a family, probably including abusive or neglectful parents, a history of poverty and hopelessness, and so on.

The police tie the man to a chair, with his arms securely strapped to the armrests.  Then they hand you an axe.  Answer me honestly: what do you do next?



Posted By: seekshidayath
Date Posted: 15 May 2008 at 7:34pm
 Ronn , there are certain conditions to be met before chopping of there hands. Its not that all the theives are chopped off.
 
These are the conditions
 
1-  The stolen property should be something of worth, because that which is of no worth has no sanctity, such as musical instruments, wine and pigs.
 
2- The value of the stolen property should be above a certain limit, which is three Islamic dirhams or a quarter of an Islamic dinar, or their equivalent in other currencies.
 
3-  The stolen property should have been taken from a place where it had been put away, i.e., a place where people usually put their property, such as a cupboard, for example.
 
4-  The theft itself has to be proven, either by the testimony of two qualified witnesses or by the confession of the thief twice.
 
5-  The person from whom the property was stolen has to ask for it back; if he does not, then (the thief’s) hand does not have to be cut off. 
 
 You must have read this hadith when read the link posted earlier in my posts. Here shall i repeat the hadith that  a noblewoman stole at the time of the Prophet (pbuh), and Usamah ibn Zayd wanted to intercede for her. The Prophet (pbuh) became angry and said, “Do you intercede concerning one of the hadd punishments set by Allah? Those who came before you were destroyed because if a rich man among them stole, they would let him off, but if a lowly person stole, they would carry out the punishment on him. By Allah, if Fatimah bint Muhammad {his own daughter} were to steal, I would cut off her hand.”
 
And an other important point to be noted is that the hands of a thief when meets the conditions above are cut from wrists, whereas if one indulges in robbery or by extortion does n't gets chopped.
 
 
 


-------------
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “All the descendants of Adam are sinners, and the best of sinners are those who repent."


Posted By: Nausheen
Date Posted: 15 May 2008 at 7:46pm
Auzubillahi minash shaitan ir Rajeem,
Bismillah ir Rahman ir Rahim
 
 
 
 
 
Originally posted by Ron Webb

I would say that the debate is whether chopping off body parts is ever wise and just.

This is not about punishments from God.  It's about punishments from men -- and more specifically about the mindset of men who can believe that God would command such atrocities.

Imagine that your wallet has been stolen, and the thief has been caught.  Don't imagine this in the abstract -- imagine the thief as a real person.  Picture his face contorted with fear, hear the anguish in his quivering voice.  Give him a family, probably including abusive or neglectful parents, a history of poverty and hopelessness, and so on.

The police tie the man to a chair, with his arms securely strapped to the armrests.  Then they hand you an axe.  Answer me honestly: what do you do next?

 
If you had read my previous post perhaps you would have understood better.
You are speaking of a society where these crimes are prevalant.
 
But guidelines of Islam dictates a society where these crimes should not occur - merely because the skeleton of  God's laws wears the garb of spirituality.   If one knows his creator, he would know His gifts, blessings bounties and favors, and would not want his God to look away from him for even a moment. He would not dare come near anything that would amount to His displeasure, let alone His anger - this person would understand what anger can a transgression generate if God has warned and set limits of such serious punishments - he would not want to come near that anger. Is our Mr. theif wearing that garb of spirituality?
 
Copping of hands is for stealing, and stonning to death is prescribed for some other crime. Today people have lost sight into the gravity of crimes, that is why we are discussing the nature of punishments - their propensity, and effect on someones life. 
 
People are shortsighted today.   Why would anyone come near a crime so disliked by God that He has set such a serious punishment? - we are not discussing this, rather we are discussing the punishment of God after someone might have crossed His limits.
 
This is perhaps because you have called this  "mind set of a people ... " This is the mind-set of a people who don't doubt the wisdom of God. They accept Him as He revealed Himself. 
 
You would definitely debate the wisdom of chopping hands, because you don't beleive it to be coming from God, and this is the crux. Therefore I had said, God does have a wrath, He being merciful is no logic to deny that.
 
One will question the wisdom of chopping off of hands and stoning to death only if they have a doubt of it being from their Creator, otherwise there is no debate about its wisdom.
 
He is beyond our perception, but His limits and His guidance are sufficient for salvation.  If one were to extrapolate all of this beyond a family, a home, a life of this world, into a life beyond this world, one would rather busy himself engagging in much that would exalt his ranks in the final abode - for that takes one far, very far from any deed a punishment of which has become debatable in our times. Islam dictates a society where people's aims  are set to such high standards, however regretfully that society is becoming more of a far fetched dream ... shadowed in the glitter of the immediate world.
 
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
Wanu nazzilu minal Qurani ma huwa
Shafaa un wa rahmatun lil mo'mineena
wa la yaziduzzalimeena illa khasara.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 15 May 2008 at 8:34pm
Answer me honestly, Nausheen: what do you do next?


Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 16 May 2008 at 1:56am
Ron,
 
In an Islamic state, punishment for crimes come only after the paths leading to crimes are closed. eg. A hungry man stealing bread to eat doesnt warrant a punishment. Its the responsibility of the state to have made the man able to feed himself and meet his basic needs. 


-------------
'Trust everyone but not the devil in them'


Posted By: Tariq
Date Posted: 16 May 2008 at 4:29am

BISMILLAH HIR RAHMAN NIR RAHIM

After all the issues of do deeds and misdeeds and forgiving them and punishing them it is common to found in every society but how to maintain a society requires some conditions to be met. And i think the war on terror in Iraq and afghanistan is an example for the world although they got nothing from there but still the matter is clear that west wants to stop terrorism and for that purpose they are simply KILLING.

I hope no body minds


Posted By: Tariq
Date Posted: 16 May 2008 at 4:53am
Assalam ao alaiqum  wa rahmatullah
 
After all the fars and hope from allah , as some follow the right path by fear and some follow with hope, some dont follow at all
But there is one group , community of believers who follows allah and his prophets with love and it is very sooner when they are deprived of feeling and concept of hope and fear they dont care whether theyr friend and love throw them in hell fire or in paradise their only mission and  objective i s only Allah and his team of who he loves.
 
THIS IS ENTIRELY A DIFFERENT THINKING TO THOSE WHO NEVER WANTED TO OBEY ALLAH WITH LOVE BECAUSE THEY ARE AGREED UPON TH UNWORTHY PERISHABLE LIFE OF DUNYA


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 16 May 2008 at 6:09pm

Assalamu alaikum Saladin,

Originally posted by Saladin

In an Islamic state, punishment for crimes come only after the paths leading to crimes are closed. eg. A hungry man stealing bread to eat doesnt warrant a punishment.

Does the Quran say that somewhere?
 
Its the responsibility of the state to have made the man able to feed himself and meet his basic needs. 
 
And is that in the Quran?


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 17 May 2008 at 4:28pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by Tariq

The non-Muslim may say, “Chopping off the hands in this 20th century. Islam is a barbaric and ruthless religion!” 
That is exactly what I say; and the fact that it may reduce crime does not make it any less barbaric and ruthless.  Even without any other evidence, the cruelty throughout the Quran is enough to convince me that it did not come from a loving God.
 
I would much, much prefer to be robbed on a regular basis than to have a single thief mutilated in this way.  Frankly, I am astonished that Islam teaches that possessions are more important than mercy and forgiveness.
 
Ron,
starange enough that in my study of the Bible, I find your lord giving the same command that you seem to have problem with when a Muslim says it. And Jesus was a Muslim by faith, as he submitted to the will of the "Father" God. 1 John 2:17The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.
Please read along:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=5&verse=30&version=31&context=verse - Matthew 5:30
And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Hasan 




-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 18 May 2008 at 11:26am
Hasan, if you can't see the difference between Matthew's clearly figurative comment about cutting of one's own hands, and the Quran's clearly literal punishment of cutting off someone else's hands, then I don't think anything I could say would help you.


Posted By: Tariq
Date Posted: 18 May 2008 at 3:43pm

WAILAIQUM US SALAM,

The answer for maintaing economical and financial matters of society for every person especially for poor persons, Islam obligated muslims to pay charity that is called zakat which is obligatory to every muslim who has eligibility to pay it , and then second is sadaqa which is also  a form of charity which recommend after obligation . If some one wants references so just read first verses of surah baqra chapter 2 of quran and there are several places where quran has emphasized on this matter.

Regarding stealing , so it is stealing but hudood laws or in which cutting of hand has certain conditions first the thing should be cost worthy of atleast 3  dirham  and to some scholar it is 10 dirham it is as amount which is calculated according to the  ratio of the value of different times.
After that it has other conditions too, which had been mentioned in previous posts.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 18 May 2008 at 4:48pm
Ten Dirham (UAE) = $2.70 (Canadian) at present exchange rates.  I paid more than that last week for a fancy cup of coffee.  Tariq, would you really cut off a person's hands for that!? Shocked
 
By the way, can you give me any evidence for these conditions in the Quran?  Did these conditions come for Allah, or from men?


Posted By: seekshidayath
Date Posted: 18 May 2008 at 6:08pm

Chapter 5 verse 38 says , " And (as for) the male thief and the female thief, cut off their hands as a recompense for that which both committed, a punishment by way of example from Allah. And Allah is All-Powerful, All-Wise"

39.  "But whosoever repents after his crime and does righteous good deeds, then verily, Allah will pardon him. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

This is the verse Ronn. Even if  it were only hadiths, we would try our best to implement it for it is from a chosen Prophet. And if the person deserves this punishment in an Islamic state, i would not hesitate to chop him. Even if i were the thief, i would present myselves to cut my wrists. But  fear of punishment stops me to steal. Fear of God, does stop me too.



-------------
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “All the descendants of Adam are sinners, and the best of sinners are those who repent."


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 18 May 2008 at 7:52pm

Originally posted by seekshidayath

Chapter 5 verse 38 says , " And (as for) the male thief and the female thief, cut off their hands as a recompense for that which both committed, a punishment by way of example from Allah. And Allah is All-Powerful, All-Wise"

39.  "But whosoever repents after his crime and does righteous good deeds, then verily, Allah will pardon him. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

This is the verse Ronn.


This verse says nothing about the value of the goods stolen, let alone a limit of three/ten dirhams.

It does raise a few questions though:
1. Who wouldn't say they repent, faced with such a horrific punishment?
2. Who would believe such repentance is sincere?
3. How is the culprit supposed to "do righteous deeds" while in police custody?

And if the person deserves this punishment in an Islamic state, i would not hesitate to chop him.

Over the price of a coffee?  This is your concept of a "merciful" God?

Even if i were the thief, i would present myselves to cut my wrists.

I believe that meets the clinical definition of insanity.



Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 19 May 2008 at 6:26am

Exodus 21: 

 
6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

 17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

 
 
Mark 7
 
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
 
 
 
Deuteronomy

 20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

 21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you

23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

 24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

Deuteronomy 21
 
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

 19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

 20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

 21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Numbers 11
 
1 And when the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard it; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of the camp.
 
Ezekiel 23
 
25 And I will set my jealousy against thee, and they shall deal furiously with thee: they shall take away thy nose and thine ears; and thy remnant shall fall by the sword: they shall take thy sons and thy daughters; and thy residue shall be devoured by the fire.
 
Leviticus 20
 
18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.
 
Leviticus 21
 
9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.
 


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 19 May 2008 at 12:31pm
I'm not sure what your point is, Shasta'sAunt.  Are you trying to show that Islam is just as bad as Judaism?


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 19 May 2008 at 4:48pm
Ron, I guess the point is the same what Jesus is quoted to have said in my post before.
In Islam we believe that on the day of Judgement you will not have control over you hands, tongue and eye in the sense that they will be witness against yourself if you denied what they did. That's what Jesus is saying that, if your had commits a sin, becuse of its sin (if you did not pay for it here) you in full body be lead toword hell for punishment. So he says, cut it off from your body if you have stolen or done something wrong with it acording to what is taught in that book if you don't want to be thrown complete inthe hell fire.
What is your reading of that verse?
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 19 May 2008 at 5:57pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

I'm not sure what your point is, Shasta'sAunt.  Are you trying to show that Islam is just as bad as Judaism?
 
"This is not about punishments from God.  It's about punishments from men -- and more specifically about the mindset of men who can believe that God would command such atrocities."
 
This is about punishment from God. God commanded that certain acts should be punished in certain ways. Not just in Islam and Judaism, but in Christianity also. Why always leave Christianity out? Jesus did not say that man was not to be punished for wrong doing, in fact the opposite:
 
Romans 13

 1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

And in Acts Ananias and Sapphira were put to death by the hand of God for lying.


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 19 May 2008 at 7:38pm

Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt

This is about punishment from God.

Not the way I see it.  If God wants to cut off somebody's hands for a minor crime, then let God do it.  He doesn't need you or me to do His dirty work.  (And please don't try to tell me there's some valuable moral lesson I need to learn from such butchery.)

Why always leave Christianity out?

Because this discussion is not about Christianity, for one thing.  Because it is no defense of Islam to claim that Christianity is no better, for another.  Because Christ never said anything about cutting off body parts.  Because Romans 13:4 is obviously not to be taken literally (nobody uses swords anymore).



Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 19 May 2008 at 8:03pm
Originally posted by honeto

What is your reading of that verse?
 
Probably the same as yours -- that one must be willing to give up anything (e.g., friendships, pleasures) that causes you to sin -- but in a strictly allegorical sense, not to be taken literally.  I meant it when I said that cutting off your own hand because you think God told you to (or for any reason, except maybe gangrene) meets the clinical definition of insanity.


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 20 May 2008 at 5:34am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt

This is about punishment from God.

Not the way I see it.  If God wants to cut off somebody's hands for a minor crime, then let God do it.  He doesn't need you or me to do His dirty work.  (And please don't try to tell me there's some valuable moral lesson I need to learn from such butchery.)

Why always leave Christianity out?

Because this discussion is not about Christianity, for one thing.  Because it is no defense of Islam to claim that Christianity is no better, for another.  Because Christ never said anything about cutting off body parts.  Because Romans 13:4 is obviously not to be taken literally (nobody uses swords anymore).

 
Christians believe that Jesus is God, therefore anything that God said are the words of Jesus.  God did in fact talk about cutting off body parts.
 
Christians who say that the Old Testament does not count have no grounds to stand upon. They use the OT to prove the prophesy of Jesus, supposedly, but discount anything that they do not like.  If Jesus is God, he is the same God who ordered the nose and ears of the prostitute to be cut off.
 
How can you have a discussion about what you feel are atrocities in religion without taking into account all religion?
 
I don't think sword is what is meant. It is meant that governments and human authority will carry out God's punishments on this earth.  If men do not punish people who do wrong, who will?  Do you think God will smite every person who does something wrong? If that were the case there would be no need for parents, governments, police, a conscience, etc.... We'd all just walk around getting hit by lightening bolts. 
 
And yes, there is a lesson to be learned from punishment. It does not necessarily have to be a moral lesson, just a lesson in common sense. If you see someone commit and crime and they are punished in an unforgettable fashion you are less likely to commit that crime yourself. If there is no punishment for the crime, what deterrent is there? Not much. Just look around at our current society.....
 


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 20 May 2008 at 6:05am

The Old Testament is not just prophecy of Jesus but history showing us that man needs Jesus.  Specific punishments for specific crimes, at specific times.  Not necessarily to be used today.  

In a Christian, Democratic society there is always hope of rehabilation.  The robber will make something better of himself, if he loses foot and/or hand chances are he will remain a burden.


-------------
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 20 May 2008 at 6:46pm

Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt

Christians who say that the Old Testament does not count have no grounds to stand upon. They use the OT to prove the prophesy of Jesus, supposedly, but discount anything that they do not like. If Jesus is God, he is the same God who ordered the nose and ears of the prostitute to be cut off.

Same God, new covenant.  Something that (with no disrespect intended) I wouldn't expect a Muslim to understand, because Islam does not admit the possibility of change.

How can you have a discussion about what you feel are atrocities in religion without taking into account all religion?

But we're not talking about atrocities in religion.  I'm not, anyway.  I'm talking about atrocities in Islam; and I say again, it's no defense of Islam to say that other religions are no better.

And yes, there is a lesson to be learned from punishment. It does not necessarily have to be a moral lesson, just a lesson in common sense. If you see someone commit and crime and they are punished in an unforgettable fashion you are less likely to commit that crime yourself.

This "end justifies the means" stuff is disturbing.  I hope you're not a parent, Auntie.  I'd hate to think what lengths you'd go to, to get them to eat their vegetables.



Posted By: Nausheen
Date Posted: 20 May 2008 at 11:46pm
Auzubillahi minash shaitan ir Rajeem,
Bismillah ir Rahman ir Rahim,
 
Ron, I was not here for quite sometime, thus lost the flow. Could you please rephrase your question to me, as I dont really get your point (if it is relevant to you, i.e)
 
You have asked people for proofs of their posts in the Quran. One thing non-muslims have a hard time understanding is the validity of islamic laws, ie the sharia - and that it is based on rulings in the Quran as well as the hadith. Hadith are recorded incidences of prescribed practices from the life of the prophet sallallahu alaihe wasallam. The preconditions for chopping hands of theifs (and I dont know all of them) is that it is done in an islamic state, and that the state has ensured the living conditions of people is not that they are forced to steal in order to survive. - you can see a miror of this in the sharia ruling where people are allowed to consume even  pork(something unlawful for muslims) if that is the only food available to them and they have to starve to death if they did not consume it. So Islam has laws to purify societies, they are not there merely to ampute people or force them to embrace death ... a concept I dont think one can discuss in this thread.
 
 
 
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Same God, new covenant.  Something that (with no disrespect intended) I wouldn't expect a Muslim to understand, because Islam does not admit the possibility of change.

This is incorrectly put. If islam did not see the possibility of change, it would have not acknowledged the laws of Abraham and Moses  coming from the same One God who sent down the Mohammadan laws - a transition in laws sent by God.  What Islam does not accept is a "man made change" within religion. We dont follow the laws of Moses, but we follow the laws sent for Muhammad - and we do not accept any change in them made by "people".
 
You have mentioned in yet another post, that stealing is a minor crime. It could have been a minor crime if God said so. If social standards deteriorated such that people were to say molestation is a minor crime ... perhaps following your line of argument one should stoop to accept that as well.
 
 


-------------
Wanu nazzilu minal Qurani ma huwa
Shafaa un wa rahmatun lil mo'mineena
wa la yaziduzzalimeena illa khasara.


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 21 May 2008 at 6:34am
"You have mentioned in yet another post, that stealing is a minor crime. It could have been a minor crime if God said so. If social standards deteriorated such that people were to say molestation is a minor crime ... perhaps following your line of argument one should stoop to accept that as well."
 
In many cases molestation has become a minor crime. No one in Western society is put to death for molestation alone and often times they are given a very light sentence. In some cases, such as the Catholic molestations, only a handful of preists have even been charged, much less been punished.
 
I think what non-Muslims cannot grasp is that we see God's Word as God's Word, whether it was revealed to us 1400 years ago or yesterday. 

"This "end justifies the means" stuff is disturbing.  I hope you're not a parent, Auntie.  I'd hate to think what lengths you'd go to, to get them to eat their vegetables."

God's Laws concerning criminal acts and the subsequent punishment were made very clear in the The Quran and by the Prophet. Muslims alive during the time of the Prophet and subsequent Islamic States knew the laws and the punishment. If you know that you will be executed for murder and you choose to murder anyway then you should not be surprised when you are put to death.
 
Unfortunately today the lines have become ambiguous and fear of punishment no longer stops people from committing crimes because there is no real fear of punishment. But I'm betting if the next sick old man who kidnapped a child, raped them and killed them was publicly castrated then put to death in the same manner in which the child was murdered, the next pervert might think twice...  Disturbing maybe, but not quite as disturbing to me as the poor raped and murdered child.   
 
As for eating veggies, well the punishment is so hideous I can't really write it down...
 


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 21 May 2008 at 3:36pm
believer,
I do not think that a society can be Christian and democratic same time. Democratic society makes rules that the majority chooses, for example if a city votes and decides that a strip club to be open, it is decided on the basis of majority OKaying it, even though it is wrong from the religious point of view of a Christian.
We Muslims and Christians are in the same boat, when it comes to be democratic. Democracy is a system that serves the desires of a person and a community. It constantly votes for changes and changes and goes around in a circle, wrong becomes right, and right becomes wrong over and over.
Can you name a true Christian country that is also democratic?
Hasan
 


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 21 May 2008 at 4:08pm

Originally posted by Nausheen

Ron, I was not here for quite sometime, thus lost the flow. Could you please rephrase your question to me, as I dont really get your point (if it is relevant to you, i.e)

I was asking whether you, Nausheen, would personally chop off a man's hands if he stole from you.  It's easy to talk about this in the abstract, but it's entirely different when you are faced with the prospect of inflicting such cruelty on a real, living person.

This is incorrectly put. If islam did not see the possibility of change, it would have not acknowledged the laws of Abraham and Moses  coming from the same One God who sent down the Mohammadan laws - a transition in laws sent by God.

Really?  I thought the Muslim belief is that Abraham and Moses were given the same laws as we find on the Quran, and that any apparent differences are due to human error and corruption.



Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 21 May 2008 at 4:37pm

Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt

God's Laws concerning criminal acts and the subsequent punishment were made very clear in the The Quran and by the Prophet. Muslims alive during the time of the Prophet and subsequent Islamic States knew the laws and the punishment. If you know that you will be executed for murder and you choose to murder anyway then you should not be surprised when you are put to death.

I'm not talking about murderers, or child molesters, or rapists.  I'm talking about a petty thief, who hurt no one and stole something worth only a few bucks.  I'm saying that the punishment far too extreme for the crime.  And it doesn't help to tell me that such cruelty will eliminate theft.  I don't believe it, for one thing -- most thieves don't expect to get caught -- but even if it were true, I would far rather live in a society rife with petty theft than one which indulges in such barbarity.

Both my intellect and my conscience tell me that -- two capacities that I was given directly from God, even more directly than the Quran.  If I cannot trust my own intellect and my own conscience, then with what mental faculties am I supposed to decide that the Quran (and not the Bhagavad Gita or the Tao Te Ching or the Bible, for instance) is the word of God?



Posted By: Nausheen
Date Posted: 21 May 2008 at 9:10pm
Auzubillahi minash shaitan ir Rajeem,
Bismillah ir Rahman ir Rahim,
 
 
Originally posted by Ron Webb

I was asking whether you, Nausheen, would personally chop off a man's hands if he stole from you.  It's easy to talk about this in the abstract, but it's entirely different when you are faced with the prospect of inflicting such cruelty on a real, living person.
 
Your question is arbitrary because;
A. I am not an islamic state. This law is to be executed in an islamic state.
B. Any individual who lives in an islamic state does not have a right to chop off hands for theft. The mattar needs to be taken to a court, proven, and judgement given by the mufti - judge.
 
Now, if you were to ask if I was living in an islamic state and this had happened to me, what would I have done - will I take this person to the court and see to it that the sentence of chopping his hands is pronounced or not?  ... I don't know what my situation would have been, but at my present situtation, I would say that Islam allows ... eye for an eye, but it also says if you forgive it is better for you. So, ideally speaking I would forgive an individual who might have stollen from me. and forgiven him, with the condition that the authorities see to it he does not repeat.
 
If this guy was caught red handed by the authorities, and that authority happened to me ... then it would have been a different dimension. Because today we are living in times where there are no realy islamic states in the sense that the "the garb of spirituality is not worn by the skeleton of laws" as far as I am informed and Allah knows best. So, if I were to get authority of an islamic state, personally I would have taken my first job as to retrun this "garb" back to the society. After that execute the laws.
 
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Really?  I thought the Muslim belief is that Abraham and Moses were given the same laws as we find on the Quran, and that any apparent differences are due to human error and corruption.
 
This comment also has two aspects to be understood.
One: There were these real laws sent for Abraham and Moses (peace be upon them), which were not same. These were furhter revised for Muhammad (sallallahu alaihe wasallam).
Two: The laws as they were sent to former prophets, do not exist anymore, they have been poluted by human interception.
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
Wanu nazzilu minal Qurani ma huwa
Shafaa un wa rahmatun lil mo'mineena
wa la yaziduzzalimeena illa khasara.


Posted By: Tariq
Date Posted: 22 May 2008 at 5:21am
Assalam o aliqum wa rahmatullah,
For your reference the verse which speaks about ans eye for an eye , and so on. Its in Quran in surah maidah chapter 5, vesr 45,
 
 
"And we had obligated upon them(on jews) that a life with a life , and an eye with an eye and a nose with a nose , and a ear with a ear, and a tooth with a tooth and the wounds are QASSAS .And who so ever forgive it so it will be his compensation from his(misdeeds)
Meaning the part of his misdeeds will be finished with that forgiveness.
Qassas as you in arabic it is literally means to do equvalence or euality in a situation
And in terminoly of shariah it means that equal punishment will be given.
 
companion of Prophet abullah in abbas says: Allah is intending to say that we obligated in torah all these laws. (Tafseer kabir of Imam fakhru ud din Alrazi.)
Imam Fakhr ru din Alrazi also states that :You should bear in mind that this was the law and shairiah in Torah and the Jews changed  and tampered this law in their books . So allah has described this law as well as he described it in Torah (old testement)


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 22 May 2008 at 6:56pm

Originally posted by Nausheen

Now, if you were to ask if I was living in an islamic state and this had happened to me, what would I have done - will I take this person to the court and see to it that the sentence of chopping his hands is pronounced or not?  ... I don't know what my situation would have been, but at my present situtation, I would say that Islam allows ... eye for an eye, but it also says if you forgive it is better for you. So, ideally speaking I would forgive an individual who might have stollen from me. and forgiven him, with the condition that the authorities see to it he does not repeat.

So the State is responsible for catching the thief, and prosecuting the thief, and convicting the thief -- but then the victim has an opportunity to forgive the crime?  And if he doesn't, the State is required to cut off the thief's hands?  And this seems reasonable to you?

It seems pretty arbitrary to me, whether the victim happens to be in a forgiving mood or not.  As far as I can see, you might as well just flip a coin: heads you're scot-free, tails you're butchered.


Posted By: Nausheen
Date Posted: 22 May 2008 at 9:49pm
Auzubillahi minash shaitan ir Rajeem,
Bismillah ir Rahman ir Rahim,
 
 
Originally posted by Ron Webb

It seems pretty arbitrary to me, whether the victim happens to be in a forgiving mood or not.  As far as I can see, you might as well just flip a coin: heads you're scot-free, tails you're butchered.
 
We don't come here to appease your understanding of our religion. If you have a question on how things are, we gladly provide an answer if we know.
 
From what you say, it seem as if the theif is the victim, not the one who is robbed.
 
No matter how minor you think robbery is, when God has called it so henious that the perpeterator should have his hands chopped, then it is a very serious matter.  
 
Have you known anyone who is poor, who earns all day just to earn their daily bread ... with no money for even the things we may call a life-line? There are people living in countries where there is no health insurance, nor ample jobs, nor good education, or enough food. If people are robbed there, its not just their wallet (a tiny fraction, with much saved in bank ballences) ... one who is robbed may be robbed off his wage that could bring bread on the table.  - Who knows what dire circumstances one may fall into if s/he is robbed  - but if you think its of little consequence, then that is what you think.  Just that we don't agree.
 
 
 
 


-------------
Wanu nazzilu minal Qurani ma huwa
Shafaa un wa rahmatun lil mo'mineena
wa la yaziduzzalimeena illa khasara.


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 22 May 2008 at 11:30pm

"I'm not talking about murderers, or child molesters, or rapists.  I'm talking about a petty thief, who hurt no one and stole something worth only a few bucks.  I'm saying that the punishment far too extreme for the crime.  And it doesn't help to tell me that such cruelty will eliminate theft.  I don't believe it, for one thing -- most thieves don't expect to get caught -- but even if it were true, I would far rather live in a society rife with petty theft than one which indulges in such barbarity.

Capital punishment was taken very seriously during the time of The Prophet and in subsequent Islamic states. Such punishment was not just arbitrarily meted out.
 
In a true Islamic State there was no reason for theft. The state took care of orphans, widows and those who could not work. It was responsible for the welfare of all of it's citizens, even the non-Muslims.
 
I found this list of conditions on another website and I am sure they are correct, Allah knows best.

1- The thing should have been taken by stealth; if it was not taken by stealth, then the hand should not be cut off, such as when property has been seized by force in front of other people, because in this case the owner of the property could have asked for help to stop the thief. 

2- The stolen property should be something of worth, because that which is of no worth has no sanctity, such as musical instruments, wine and pigs.

2- The value of the stolen property should be above a certain limit, which is three Islamic Dirhams or a quarter of an Islamic Dinar, or their equivalent in other currencies.

3- The stolen property should have been taken from a place where it had been put away, i.e., a place where people usually put their property, such as a cupboard, for example.

4- The theft itself has to be proven, either by the testimony of two qualified witnesses or by the confession of the thief twice.

5- The person from whom the property was stolen has to ask for it back; if he does not, then (the thief’s) hand does not have to be cut off. 

During times of famine or if the theft was due to hunger the circumstances were taken into consideration:

"It was reported to Omar that some boys in the service of Hatib Ibn Abi Balta'a had stolen the she-camel of a man from the tribe of Muznah. When Omar questioned the boys they admitted the theft so he ordered their hands to be cut. But on second thoughts he said, "By God I would cut their hands if I did not know that you employ these boys and starve them so that they would be permitted to eat that which is prohibited unto them".

Then he addressed their employer saying: "By God, since Ihave not cut their hands I am going to penalize you with a fine that shall pain you" and he ordered him to pay double the price of the she- camel".

Barbarism is subjective. As Sister Nausheen pointed out, if you live in a country where the very survival of your children depends on what the thief has taken then what is more barbaric: the thief who has sentenced your child to death with his thievery or the court that orders his hand be cut off?


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 22 May 2008 at 11:35pm
"It seems pretty arbitrary to me, whether the victim happens to be in a forgiving mood or not.  As far as I can see, you might as well just flip a coin: heads you're scot-free, tails you're butchered."
 
Once again I say, if you know the punishment for theft is having your hand cut off and you still steal then you should not be surprised if you have your hand cut off. I would think under the circumstances a forgiving victim might be viewed as a blessing not a flip of the coin.


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Nausheen
Date Posted: 23 May 2008 at 1:01am
Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt

 
Once again I say, if you know the punishment for theft is having your hand cut off and you still steal then you should not be surprised if you have your hand cut off. I would think under the circumstances a forgiving victim might be viewed as a blessing not a flip of the coin.
 
Clap
 
 


-------------
Wanu nazzilu minal Qurani ma huwa
Shafaa un wa rahmatun lil mo'mineena
wa la yaziduzzalimeena illa khasara.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 23 May 2008 at 9:23pm

Originally posted by Nausheen

We don't come here to appease your understanding of our religion. If you have a question on how things are, we gladly provide an answer if we know.

Actually, I came here to the forum to "appease" my own understanding of Islam, but the answers that have been provided in this discussion are having the opposite effect. 
 

From what you say, it seem as if the theif is the victim, not the one who is robbed.

It's not either/or.  They are both victims.  It should be obvious, however, which of the victims has been more cruelly victimized.

No matter how minor you think robbery is, when God has called it so henious that the perpeterator should have his hands chopped, then it is a very serious matter.

Describing the theft of a cup of coffee as "so heinous that the perpetrator should have his hands choppped off" is ridiculous.  God could not possibly have intended that.  If Muslims believe that, then they are being ridiculous.

Have you known anyone who is poor, who earns all day just to earn their daily bread ... with no money for even the things we may call a life-line? There are people living in countries where there is no health insurance, nor ample jobs, nor good education, or enough food. If people are robbed there, its not just their wallet (a tiny fraction, with much saved in bank ballences) ... one who is robbed may be robbed off his wage that could bring bread on the table.  - Who knows what dire circumstances one may fall into if s/he is robbed  - but if you think its of little consequence, then that is what you think.  Just that we don't agree.

And yet according to Shasta'sAunt, "During times of famine or if the theft was due to hunger the circumstances were taken into consideration."  In other words, the circumstances you describe are (apparently) the very conditions under which this vicious punishment is not enforced.



Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 23 May 2008 at 9:45pm

Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt

Once again I say, if you know the punishment for theft is having your hand cut off and you still steal then you should not be surprised if you have your hand cut off.

But Auntie, thieves are always surprised at being caught -- otherwise they wouldn't steal in the first place!  Just because a punishment would deter you or me doesn't mean it will deter a thief.  You have to understand that thieves don't think like you or me.  That's why they are thieves, and you and I aren't.

You will never entirely eliminate crime, regardless of the consequences, because poor decision-making and disregard of consequences are characteristic of criminal nature.


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 24 May 2008 at 3:08am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt

Once again I say, if you know the punishment for theft is having your hand cut off and you still steal then you should not be surprised if you have your hand cut off.

But Auntie, thieves are always surprised at being caught -- otherwise they wouldn't steal in the first place!  Just because a punishment would deter you or me doesn't mean it will deter a thief.  You have to understand that thieves don't think like you or me.  That's why they are thieves, and you and I aren't.

You will never entirely eliminate crime, regardless of the consequences, because poor decision-making and disregard of consequences are characteristic of criminal nature.
 
So are you saying that the criminal should not be punished because they didn't expect to get caught? 
 
Whether they expect to get caught or not does not negate the fact that they know the punishment if they do get caught. If they are willing to take the risk then they should be willing to accept the consequences.
 
I think it is the very fact that you point out, criminals don't think like you or me, that God ordered severe punishments.  If their own conscience and sense of morality will not stop them, then perhaps the spectre of a severe punishment will. If THAT still doesn't work, then they have only received that which they asked for.


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 24 May 2008 at 3:18am
From what you say, it seem as if the theif is the victim, not the one who is robbed.

It's not either/or.  They are both victims.  It should be obvious, however, which of the victims has been more cruelly victimized."

I don't see how you can seriously believe that the perpetrator of a criminal act and the victim of that criminal act are both victims.
 
 


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 24 May 2008 at 3:24am

"And yet according to Shasta'sAunt, "During times of famine or if the theft was due to hunger the circumstances were taken into consideration."  In other words, the circumstances you describe are (apparently) the very conditions under which this vicious punishment is not enforced."

Taken into consideration, but not necessarily not enforced. Famine or hunger do not give thieves the right to steal with impunity.



-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 24 May 2008 at 1:04pm
Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt

So are you saying that the criminal should not be punished because they didn't expect to get caught?
 
I'm saying that the punishment should be commensurate with the crime, that increasing the punishment to barbaric extremes will not serve any useful purpose, except to promote barbarity.
 
Whether they expect to get caught or not does not negate the fact that they know the punishment if they do get caught. If they are willing to take the risk then they should be willing to accept the consequences.
 
People commit crimes for a whole variety of reasons: alcohol/drugs, "anger management" issues, religious/cultural beliefs, or (probably most often) just plain st**idity.  The common factors in all these conditions are poor decision-making and disregard of consequences.   They are not generally "willing to take the risk".  Most of the time they don't even consider the risk; and if they do, they foolishly judge the risk to be zero.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 24 May 2008 at 1:10pm
Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt

I don't see how you can seriously believe that the perpetrator of a criminal act and the victim of that criminal act are both victims. 
 
We are talking about two separate acts: the crime and the punishment.  Both have perpetrators, and both have victims.


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 25 May 2008 at 4:49am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt

I don't see how you can seriously believe that the perpetrator of a criminal act and the victim of that criminal act are both victims. 
 
We are talking about two separate acts: the crime and the punishment.  Both have perpetrators, and both have victims.
 
There would be no punishment if not for the criminal act, so the perpetrator is actually responsible for both.


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 25 May 2008 at 5:02am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt

So are you saying that the criminal should not be punished because they didn't expect to get caught?
 
I'm saying that the punishment should be commensurate with the crime, that increasing the punishment to barbaric extremes will not serve any useful purpose, except to promote barbarity.
 
Whether they expect to get caught or not does not negate the fact that they know the punishment if they do get caught. If they are willing to take the risk then they should be willing to accept the consequences.
 
People commit crimes for a whole variety of reasons: alcohol/drugs, "anger management" issues, religious/cultural beliefs, or (probably most often) just plain st**idity.  The common factors in all these conditions are poor decision-making and disregard of consequences.   They are not generally "willing to take the risk".  Most of the time they don't even consider the risk; and if they do, they foolishly judge the risk to be zero.
 
I do not care why they commit the crime and st**idity is no excuse. If I am living my life in a peaceful, non-violent, following the laws of the land fashion, I have a right to expect not to become a victim of someone who does not want to follow the laws. If I am victimized I have the right to expect the criminal to be punished.
 
Just because there are people who choose to live outside the law and have no regard for their fellow human or societal norms does not mean that I should have to live in fear of being the victim of a crime or that I should feel pity for the perpetrator of criminal acts. They obviously are not feeling any pity for those they perpetrate their crimes upon or they would not be doing the crime.
 
Hey, don't do the crime if you can't do the time, don't do it!!!


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 25 May 2008 at 7:32am
Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt

There would be no punishment if not for the criminal act, so the perpetrator is actually responsible for both.
 
But not solely responsible.  Things usually have multiple causes.  There would be no punishment if not for the actions of the justice system either.  Besides, criminals are a product of the society (parents, schools, communities, economies) that creates them.  We all share responsibility for the many social factors that lead to crime.
 
Actually, I always thought that the interconnectedness of all people and indeed of all life is one of the major themes of most religions.  Is it not so for Islam?


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 25 May 2008 at 7:44am
Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt

I do not care why they commit the crime and st**idity is no excuse. If I am living my life in a peaceful, non-violent, following the laws of the land fashion, I have a right to expect not to become a victim of someone who does not want to follow the laws. If I am victimized I have the right to expect the criminal to be punished.
 
I agree totally.  That's not the issue.  You seem to be attacking two "straw men" of your own making:
1. That criminals ought not to be punished.
2. That horrific crimes do not deserve horrific punishments.
 
I'm not saying either of those things.  What I'm saying is that trivial crimes like the theft of three/ten dirhams (e.g., a cup of coffee) do not deserve horrific punishments (i.e., cutting off hands).
 
If you believe that violent criminals (armed robbery, home invasions) should lose their hands, then although I still would disagree I would at least understand and respect your point of view.  But honestly, if you "live in fear" that someone is going to steal something worth a couple of bucks, then you need help.


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 27 May 2008 at 12:07am
"Actually, I always thought that the interconnectedness of all people and indeed of all life is one of the major themes of most religions.  Is it not so for Islam?"
 
Lives may be interconnected but we are solely responsible for our own actions and behaviors.
 
There are people who have been raised in horrendous circumstances who have never broken a law in their lives, just as there are those who have everything yet commit crimes just for fun or the thrill of it. They choose to commit a crime or not.
 
"There would be no punishment if not for the actions of the justice system either."
 
Actually, if no crimes are committed no punishment is given.


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 28 May 2008 at 6:02am

Its interesting Ron, that you think of certain things as barbaric.. and that is your view.

for me people are quite barbaric.. all over..
 
You bring up a small amount that one would need to steal and you trivialize that amount. Having lived over sees where people survive on 2 dollars per day, that amount is ALOT. To you are me, minor, but to the poorest of the poor alot. And sad to say there are too many people in the world and if someone steals from them there is NO justice.  


-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 28 May 2008 at 6:05pm
Originally posted by Hayfa

for me people are quite barbaric.. all over..
 
Your attitude seems to me rather disrespectful of Allah's greatest creation.
 
You bring up a small amount that one would need to steal and you trivialize that amount. Having lived over sees where people survive on 2 dollars per day, that amount is ALOT. To you are me, minor, but to the poorest of the poor alot.
 
Another straw man.  I'm not talking about places where two dollars is a lot.  I'm talking about places where it is trivial -- and it is trivial in Canada.  There is absolutely no justification for such an extreme penalty here.


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 28 May 2008 at 6:47pm
I hope someone learnt on this matter responds. I have heard that if someone steals a bread if they are hungry, is not the same as someone robbing a gold ring or stealing a cow to increase wealth.  They don't get the same punishment. The intention and background of the matter is also to be considered?
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Nausheen
Date Posted: 28 May 2008 at 7:14pm
Auzubillahi minash shaitan ir Rajeem,
Bismillah ir Rahman ir Rahim,
 
 
Originally posted by honeto

I hope someone learnt on this matter responds. I have heard that if someone steals a bread if they are hungry, is not the same as someone robbing a gold ring or stealing a cow to increase wealth.  They don't get the same punishment. The intention and background of the matter is also to be considered?
Hasan
 
Absolutely! That is my take on the case. Let someone correct us, if this is not true.
Only I would add; if they are hungry, with no bread, and do not have the means to earn it. Becuase the state should ensure nobody is hungry. That is why we have the system of Zakaat (obligatory charity).  Exact words of the hadith is escaping my memory, but it goes on the lines that one should not be satisfied eating their dinner till they have ensured 7 households in their neighbourhood are not sleeping hungry.


-------------
Wanu nazzilu minal Qurani ma huwa
Shafaa un wa rahmatun lil mo'mineena
wa la yaziduzzalimeena illa khasara.


Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 28 May 2008 at 8:36pm
Originally posted by Nausheen

Auzubillahi minash shaitan ir Rajeem,
Bismillah ir Rahman ir Rahim,
 
 
Originally posted by honeto

I hope someone learnt on this matter responds. I have heard that if someone steals a bread if they are hungry, is not the same as someone robbing a gold ring or stealing a cow to increase wealth.  They don't get the same punishment. The intention and background of the matter is also to be considered?
Hasan
 
Absolutely! That is my take on the case. Let someone correct us, if this is not true.
Only I would add; if they are hungry, with no bread, and do not have the means to earn it. Becuase the state should ensure nobody is hungry. That is why we have the system of Zakaat (obligatory charity).  Exact words of the hadith is escaping my memory, but it goes on the lines that one should not be satisfied eating their dinner till they have ensured 7 households in their neighbourhood are not sleeping hungry.
 
If only humans were like that this world would be a lot better


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 29 May 2008 at 4:56am
Originally posted by Israfil

Originally posted by Nausheen

Auzubillahi minash shaitan ir Rajeem,
Bismillah ir Rahman ir Rahim,
 
 
Originally posted by honeto

I hope someone learnt on this matter responds. I have heard that if someone steals a bread if they are hungry, is not the same as someone robbing a gold ring or stealing a cow to increase wealth.  They don't get the same punishment. The intention and background of the matter is also to be considered?
Hasan
 
Absolutely! That is my take on the case. Let someone correct us, if this is not true.
Only I would add; if they are hungry, with no bread, and do not have the means to earn it. Becuase the state should ensure nobody is hungry. That is why we have the system of Zakaat (obligatory charity).  Exact words of the hadith is escaping my memory, but it goes on the lines that one should not be satisfied eating their dinner till they have ensured 7 households in their neighbourhood are not sleeping hungry.
 
If only humans were like that this world would be a lot better
 
Humans are supposed to be like this.
At the time of the early Caliphs poverty was all but wiped out so theft for food or dire need was unnecessary,  and during times of famine or hunger the punishment of amputation was often times suspended.
 
Ron, these punishments can only be carried out in a truly Islamic society. To try to incorporate them into Western society would be useless. Our societies have lost all sense of morality and what is or isn't lawful.
You see the criminal as being victimized by being punished for his crime without really seeing the harm he has done to his victim. Whether the amount is small or large, being robbed or burglarized leaves you feeling vulnerable and invaded. The person committing the act has no care for how you will feel, how hard you initially had to work to acquire that which is stolen, or what consequences the theft will have on your life. They are thinking merely of themselves at your expense. They have no mercy in the matter.
In our society they really have no fear in perpetrating the crime either because even if they are caught not much will happen to them in way of punishment. Who does that benefit? The person who is working hard to support himself and family and trying to live by the law or the person who doesn't care and commits theft?
 
It doesn't matter because we are living in a corrupt society and there is no true implementation of Shariah Law anyway.  But personally I believe the only persons who find the laws barbaric or fear them would be those who intend to break them. Otherwise what difference does it make? If no-one ever stole, no-one would ever have to be punished.
 
 
 
 


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 29 May 2008 at 6:04pm

Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt

It doesn't matter because we are living in a corrupt society and there is no true implementation of Shariah Law anyway.  But personally I believe the only persons who find the laws barbaric or fear them would be those who intend to break them.

If I thought you truly believed that, I would be offended by your implication that I could be a thief.  Would you care to rephrase that?


Otherwise what difference does it make? If no-one ever stole, no-one would ever have to be punished.

But people do steal.  They always have, and they always will.  So it does make a difference, at least to those of us who find such punishments morally offensive in themselves, regardless of the societal goals they hope to achieve.

I think it makes a difference to society as a whole too, by inuring us all to violence and human suffering.  A society that would stoop to cutting off hands to curtail theft can easily justify suicide bombing, weapons of mass destruction, and similar atrocities to achieve other ideological goals.


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 29 May 2008 at 7:34pm
Just as a society that hangs, gases, and electrocutes individuals can stoop to heinous acts.
 
 


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Nausheen
Date Posted: 29 May 2008 at 7:40pm
Auzubillahi minash shaitan ir Rajeem,
Bismillah ir Rahman ir Rahim,
 
Originally posted by Ron Webb

But people do steal.  They always have, and they always will.  So it does make a difference, at least to those of us who find such punishments morally offensive in themselves, regardless of the societal goals they hope to achieve.
Ron, with no offense intended -you are simply going in circles on this thread ... if you read from the beginning every argument and counter argument from you has already been answered. You flow from one point to another and reach from where it started. Do us a favor and please read once more from page one, you will know what I mean.
You said people already steal ... are you denying history? There have been times in the Islamic states when people did not steal. There was no need for it, because of the affluence, and the law and order - shata's aunt stated this in her post.
 
Originally posted by Ron Webb

I think it makes a difference to society as a whole too, by inuring us all to violence and human suffering.  A society that would stoop to cutting off hands to curtail theft can easily justify suicide bombing, weapons of mass destruction, and similar atrocities to achieve other ideological goals.
The punishment from God can be found in the Quran and/or sharia. When people make things crooked with their own hands, it finds no basis in these documents. Thus you will not find any sanction for suicide bombing in our scriptures. It is unfair to equate the two - unless now you have become non-serious, and it is better to leave you there.
 


-------------
Wanu nazzilu minal Qurani ma huwa
Shafaa un wa rahmatun lil mo'mineena
wa la yaziduzzalimeena illa khasara.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 29 May 2008 at 7:59pm
Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt

Just as a society that hangs, gases, and electrocutes individuals can stoop to heinous acts.  
 
I agree to some extent, and I am not an enthusiastic supporter of capital punishment.  However, once again, you are attacking a straw man.  I am not denying that harsh punishments may sometimes be necessary -- an eye for an eye, a life for a life, capital punishment for capital crimes.  What I am saying (and maybe the fact that I have to keep repeating this is why Nausheen thinks I'm going in circles) is that harsh punishments should not be imposed for trivial crimes.  (And here we go again -- I can already anticipate people returning to Straw Man #2, replying to me that theft is not always trivial...)
 
Nausheen, I will try to reply more directly to you tomorrow, but it's time for Sleepy.


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 29 May 2008 at 10:59pm
Well trivial crimes are not not judged universally as trivial. For example look at bank robbery. If you walk in a bank with the intent to commit a crime its a felony or Section 2113(b) addresses the stage of taking and carrying away the property of the protected institution. The escape phase of the robbery is regarded as part of the robbery itself, not as a separate event that takes place afterward. Hence, any party assisting or participating in that phase of the robbery becomes a principal to the crime itself (United States v. von Roeder, 435 F.2d 1004 (10th Cir. 1970), but depending on the judge litigating the case anyone can get 5-24 years or more in federal prison.   In California and elsewhere in the States that is a federal offense. Now, to th bank robber who could be doing this out of pure necessity for money, in the eyes of the secular law we would think this is BS because there are avenues one could take to make ends meet. Now this is a staunch difference from a bread (or meat) thief. Perhaps certain socieities may see this as trivial because of the cost and loss to the owners to which the bread/meat belongs.
 
Crimes such as these depends on the social climate and the law. In the states especially in California this is considered petty theft so long it does not exceed the amount of $500. As you can see in this social climate we have determined what is "petty" and what is not. However to the owner of that one piece of bread it may be a big loss.
 
I have to disagree with S.A. (as I find myself doing) with her attempt to demonize the West (again) in her statement: To try to incorporate them into Western society would be useless. Our societies have lost all sense of morality and what is or isn't lawful.
 
This seems like you're saying the West is incapable of implementing moral laws that are Islamically based. If this is what you are inferring then it is untrue. In my humble, yet, biased opinions frankly our laws and moral code are a lot better than Muslim states. I've had the luxury of looking at various law systems of various countries such as Egypt, syria, Iran, Iraq and quite frankly, I think the United States and UK have great systems of law. Do people find being gased, lethal injection, or electrocuted barbaric? Yes. but not more barbaric then getting your head chopped off in public which is an attempt at humilating the suspect and striking fear in the public. but of course what do I know I'm only a cop right?


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 29 May 2008 at 11:48pm
Israfil:
 
There are no Islamic states in existence at this time. No government on the face of the earth at this point in time is an Islamic government.
 
As a cop you should know that our legal system does not work. One of the biggest criminals in the U.S. at this time is our president. We do not even have the gumption, for lack of a more colorful word, to impeach the man. But we impeached Bill Clinton for having oral sex... So apparently oral sex is a worse crime than lying, cheating, sending a million people to their death, etc.... If this is not skewered then what is? 
 
As a minority in this country and a cop I am amazed that you find our system of law so great. Most cops I know are thoroughly disgusted with our law system, the revolving doors, the light sentences, the technicalities.  Not to mention the fact that since 1989 DNA tests have exonerated 213 falsely accused prisoners, most of them black. That alone should tell you something is REALLY wrong with our judicial system. But the really sad thing is that most states are still resisting allowing DNA tests to be performed. What possible motivation could there be for refusing these tests that have already proven so many innocent? Frankly I find a system that could falsely imprison a man for 20 or 30 years then refuse to allow him the one test that could prove his innocence to be barbaric.
 
BTW: I speak out against what I find wrong in this country because it is my right as an American and if nobody speaks out then nothing will ever get better. I have always been very politically and socially active and if becoming Muslim has done anything to change this it has perhaps made me more mellow in my reactions.
If you have read any of my other posts I also speak out against things that are wrong in other countries and cultures, I am a multi-cultural/societal complainer. 
 
Ron,
 
Who decides which crime is trivial?  It wasn't very long ago that domestic violence and child abuse were considered trivial crimes in the U.S. and better left to the family to work out.
 
Perhaps you have never been a victim of crime, but I have had my home burglarized and I have been robbed at gun point twice. I did not find any of these incidents trivial and the fact that the first armed robber only got $18.00 does not make the fact that he held a gun on me and threatened to shoot me any more trivial. 
Perhaps to you $18.00 is not very much in the scheme of things, a trivial amount, but it was almost the cost of my life.
 
Do I think these criminals should have their hands amputated? Maybe. Maybe it would be less barbaric to have them stand in fear while some crazy person holds a gun to their head and screams at them to give them more than $18.00 or they will kill them. Then the crazy person can pull the trigger a couple of times on a few empty chambers to see how they will react. 
 
Suit your delicate sensibilities a little better?
 


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 30 May 2008 at 2:46pm
Shasta's Aunt
 
If you know anything about law you know there are 3 branches of government right, each having their respective laws in acocrdance to what actions transgress them. You should be aware that State laws vary from state to state each giving its own account of the severity of crimes that are committed. I never said the system is flawless or perfect, but its better than laws I've personally read from other countries. For instance I find it ridiculous that if you speak out against the Egyptian president openly you risk serving time (I believe minimum is 6 months in jail).  I highly doubt you are a multi-cultural social complainer because most of your post are generated towards the "west" but that is another story. I also thinky uo have little knowledge about law.
 
What you find on the internet and what you see on news does not always count as reality. Of course there are politics in the system such as light sentences, revolving doors etc, but the reality is you cannot change a lot of it. Politics just like systems of government are like pendelums. Looking at pieces of history does not make you right (e.g. looking at William Clinton's marital transgression).  My point is, is that laws look at trivbial crimes based on country, demographic etc.
 
 


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 30 May 2008 at 9:06pm

LOL Wow!  I must be psychic or something!

Originally posted by Ron Webb

(And here we go again -- I can already anticipate people returning to Straw Man #2, replying to me that theft is not always trivial...)

Originally posted by Israfil

Well trivial crimes are not not judged universally as trivial. For example look at bank robbery.

Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt

Perhaps you have never been a victim of crime, but I have had my home burglarized and I have been robbed at gun point twice.

Okay everyone, repeat after me: I am not talking about armed robbery, or bank robbery (which is necessarily armed), or robbery with actual or threatened violence.  These are obviously not petty crimes.

---------
It's evident that neither of you is willing to address the point I am actually making, that the Quran commands an obscenely brutal punishment even for petty thefts. -- even for the simple theft of an item worth only a few bucks, with no violence or other aggravating factors. It is understandable that you would want to avoid such a discussion, because you know in your hearts that cutting off hands for a petty theft is morally indefensible.

It is a fundamental belief of mine that that voice inside all of us, the one that tells us right from wrong even when we don't want to listen, is God talking to us.  It is God's most direct communication, and must take precedence even over such things as the Quran, because as I have said before, if you cannot trust your own ability to discern right and wrong, how can you decide which scripture(s) are right and wrong?  How can you have faith in the Quran if you cannot have faith in your own judgement?



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Nur_Ilahi
Date Posted: 30 May 2008 at 10:59pm
Hi Ron,
For your understanding, here I quote from an Islamic source.
 
Punishment has always played an integral part in the concept of justice. We all know or at least expect that if you do something wrong you are subject to punishment in some way or another. This is only fair. Humankind is charged with the responsibility for the choices they make. This is because they are created with the freedom of choice and granted the moral sense of right and wrong. Accordingly, one is not to be punished for the actions of others, or for acts done under duress or because of insanity. All people are equal and innocent until proven guilty: only then punishment is considered.
Islam considers crime an act of injustice towards society, a sin against oneself and a transgression against Allah. Punishment is not atonement nor does it erase the sin. A sin is only forgiven through repentance. However, crime is an act of inflicting harm upon society that cannot be forgiven by repentance alone.
The object of all penal systems is to punish the offender and protect society from reoccurrence of the crime. Punishment serves as an educational purpose, as well as a form of crime deterrent and prevention and the system used must achieve this aim. However, if societies were to rely only upon their systems of punishment, they would fail miserably. An environment of healthy morality and faith must be the norm, where to do right is encouraged by all and to do wrong is discouraged and found difficult. In fact, encouraging right and forbidding wrong is a foremost duty in Islam.
Most penal systems in today's societies are based and dependent on the current social sentiment. In Islamic law, punishment is based upon divine revelation. There is no leeway for sentiment or possibility of change. These laws were established by the Creator who is Infinitely Wise and Merciful, Who knows the true affairs of the world better than humankind. To seek justice without recourse to divine help would be tragic, as all other sources of knowledge and theory are flawed by human imperfection.
Justice is the ruling spirit of Islamic law, which is known as the Shari`ah. One of the main reasons for which the Prophets (peace be upon them all) were sent were to guide mankind to justice.
In this connection, Allah, Most High, says, (We sent our messengers with clear signs and sent down with them the Book and the Balance so that men may conduct themselves with justice. ) (Al-Hadid 57: 25) and [O you who believe, be upholders of justice, witnessing for Allah alone. ) (An-Nisaa' 4: 135)
Changes in the world as well as the changing definition of concepts such as "civilized", "equality", "freedom", and "justice" have caused a critical light to shine upon Islamic laws. Such critics charge that the Shari`ah, in view of the changing world, is an outdated system of laws in need of amendment, replacement or abolishment. Views of this sort express rejection of divine guidance and even worse, rejection of the wisdom of our Lord who has put us on this earth with a purpose in life and a set of rules to live by and achieve that purpose. These rules are the ultimate criterion of justice and mercy and cannot nor need not be changed or measured against the changes and desires of society. To imply such is to imply imperfection in Allah as Lord and Master of the Universe.
There are basically three categories of punishments in Shari`ah:
The first is Hadd, which includes divinely prescribed forms of fixed punishment based upon the Qur'an and Sunnah. These are punishments set to preserve the public interest; they cannot be lightened nor made heavier, nor can the offender be pardoned. They instill a deep feeling of abhorrence in the society towards the crime for which the offender has been punished. Such crimes include drinking alcohol, armed robbery, theft, illicit sexual relations, apostasy, and slanderous accusations of promiscuity.
The second form is called Qisas, which is the punishment for homicide and assault. Whenever a person causes physical harm or death to another, the injured or family of the deceased has the right to retaliation. A unique aspect of Qisas, is that the victim's family has the option to insist upon the punishment, accept monetary recompense, or forgive the offender, which could even avert capital punishment. This leaves the door open to compassion and forgiveness. Settlements are therefore encouraged outside of court, as a judge must exact the punishment.
All other crimes fall into the third category, Ta`zir, which is a discretionary punishment decided by the court.
So, in the light of this, one cannot just brandish Islamic penal codes as being too harsh or inhumane while neglecting the fact that the source of those penal codes is the Mighty Lord, the Supreme Lord of the Universe. Everything with Him has been measured with absolute perfection. This perfection is reflected in the strict procedures laid down before a person can be convicted and punished. Actually, all forms of punishment stipulated by Shari`ah are more reforming and more successful in preventing recurrent crime than the man-made legal systems whose futility is proved and confirmed by daily incessant crimes, with prisons becoming homes to homosexuality and schools for harboring criminal behavior.


-------------
Ilahi Anta Maksudi, Wa Redhaka Mathlubi - Oh Allah, You are my destination, Your Pleasure is my Intention.


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 31 May 2008 at 12:26am
Originally posted by Israfil

Shasta's Aunt
 
If you know anything about law you know there are 3 branches of government right, each having their respective laws in acocrdance to what actions transgress them. You should be aware that State laws vary from state to state each giving its own account of the severity of crimes that are committed. I never said the system is flawless or perfect, but its better than laws I've personally read from other countries. For instance I find it ridiculous that if you speak out against the Egyptian president openly you risk serving time (I believe minimum is 6 months in jail).  I highly doubt you are a multi-cultural social complainer because most of your post are generated towards the "west" but that is another story. I also thinky uo have little knowledge about law.
 
What you find on the internet and what you see on news does not always count as reality. Of course there are politics in the system such as light sentences, revolving doors etc, but the reality is you cannot change a lot of it. Politics just like systems of government are like pendelums. Looking at pieces of history does not make you right (e.g. looking at William Clinton's marital transgression).  My point is, is that laws look at trivbial crimes based on country, demographic etc.
 
 
 
I do know a little bit about the law. It is rather off-putting to have you continually telling people what they do and do not know. You actually have no idea what profession I call my own nor my level of education. For all you know I might be a retired attorney with a second Master's in Religion and Theology.  
 
Contrary to some who post here, I actually read books, newspapers, and take part in civic and social activities. My sole source of info is not the internet, although it can be a useful tool if you know what you are looking for.
 
Yes, most of my comments are directed towards the ills in this country because this is my country and I live here. I want it to be a better place than it currently is. In this country you can be sentenced indefinitely to Gitmo merely because you are a Muslim. I think 6 months in jail for speaking out against Egypt's president doesn't seem too harsh in comparison.  
 
And if you don't look at history how can you learn from it? Our history is what defines us and hopefully what causes us to correct the paths we choose that are wrong.
 
By the way, our country was originally based upon the principal of  "government of the people, by the people, for the people", but somewhere along the way this has gotten lost.  We control the government, not the other way around.
I saw an interview with a French newsman who was saying that in France the politicians could never get away with covering up and lying like they do in the U.S. because the media would never allow it. He said that in France the politicians are afraid of the people, not the other way around, like it is in the U.S. Because in France if the people get fed up they get rid of the politicians.  Our country USED to be that way, and hopefully it will be that way again.


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 31 May 2008 at 12:45am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

It's evident that neither of you is willing to address the point I am actually making, that the Quran commands an obscenely brutal punishment even for petty thefts. -- even for the simple theft of an item worth only a few bucks, with no violence or other aggravating factors. It is understandable that you would want to avoid such a discussion, because you know in your hearts that cutting off hands for a petty theft is morally indefensible.

It is a fundamental belief of mine that that voice inside all of us, the one that tells us right from wrong even when we don't want to listen, is God talking to us.  It is God's most direct communication, and must take precedence even over such things as the Quran, because as I have said before, if you cannot trust your own ability to discern right and wrong, how can you decide which scripture(s) are right and wrong?  How can you have faith in the Quran if you cannot have faith in your own judgement?

 
O.K. as if my posts did not make my opinion clear, I do not find this punishment barbaric or morally indefensible in the least. What I do find morally indefensible are those who feel it is their right to prey upon others with no thought or care as to what harm their actions cause to the individual or the society in which they live.
 
Apparently not everyone has your little God voice telling them what is right and wrong or we would not have need of punishment because there would be no crime. We'd all be doing the right thing all of the time. Since this is not the case, then there has to be a system in place to punish those who choose not to obey the laws.  
 
What I fail to understand is how you can't seem to comprehend that those who live in countries where amputation is a punishment for theft know that amputation is a punishment for theft. The laws are not kept secret. So, if having full knowledge that you will be punished with amputation if you are caught stealing, you steal anyway, then you get what you deserve.
 
As for trusting your own judgement, apparently not everyone should have faith in their own judgement because there do seem to be those who despite the fact they know their hand will be amputated, they steal. They appear to have very poor judgement. Since this is the case, then there has to be a system in place to punish those whose own judgement is somewhat lacking.
 
If you don't want your hand cut off, then don't steal. Seems almost too simple to me. 


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 01 June 2008 at 4:00pm
Originally posted by Nausheen

There have been times in the Islamic states when people did not steal. There was no need for it, because of the affluence, and the law and order - shata's aunt stated this in her post.
 
She did state that, but she didn't elaborate or offer any evidence of it so I pretty much ignored it.  Would anyone care to tell me about?
 
Originally posted by Nausheen

 
Originally posted by Ron Webb

I think it makes a difference to society as a whole too, by inuring us all to violence and human suffering.  A society that would stoop to cutting off hands to curtail theft can easily justify suicide bombing, weapons of mass destruction, and similar atrocities to achieve other ideological goals.
The punishment from God can be found in the Quran and/or sharia. When people make things crooked with their own hands, it finds no basis in these documents. Thus you will not find any sanction for suicide bombing in our scriptures. It is unfair to equate the two - unless now you have become non-serious, and it is better to leave you there.
 
Unfortunately those who perpetrate such atrocities do claim to find a basis for their actions in Islamic scripture.  I'm not saying that such claims are valid.  What I'm saying is that the violent nature of sharia desensitizes people to violence in general, and makes them more likely to believe such claims.  After all, once you accept the legitimacy of cutting off hands to defend your cup of coffee, it is easier to justify much worse things to defend Islam.


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 01 June 2008 at 4:12pm
Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt

O.K. as if my posts did not make my opinion clear, I do not find this punishment barbaric or morally indefensible in the least.
Barbaric or not, what your posts make clear is that you are uncomfortable prescribing this punishment for petty theft, and are constantly trying to shift the discussion to more serious crimes.
 
Apparently not everyone has your little God voice telling them what is right and wrong or we would not have need of punishment because there would be no crime.
A very few people (called "psychopaths") don't seem to have that little voice at all.  For the rest of us, the voice is still there, but we are free to ignore it.  It gets easier to ignore with practice, which is what I mean by desensitization.  It's also possible to shout it down with ideology, as for instance the cry of "Allah Akbar!" as a preliminary to indiscriminate slaughter.
 
As for trusting your own judgement, apparently not everyone should have faith in their own judgement because there do seem to be those who despite the fact they know their hand will be amputated they steal. They appear to have very poor judgement. Since this is the case, then there has to be a system in place to punish those whose own judgement is somewhat lacking.
 
They do indeed generally have poor judgement, as I already said.  Since this is the case, punishment is of little or no use, because they either don't believe or never even consider that they might get caught.  (As I also already said.  Nausheen is right -- we're just going around in circles.)


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 02 June 2008 at 12:23am
"Barbaric or not, what your posts make clear is that you are uncomfortable prescribing this punishment for petty theft, and are constantly trying to shift the discussion to more serious crimes"
 
Geez Ron, if they steal they deserve what they get cannot be much clearer. I am not squeamish on this subject at all.
 
Not getting caught as a defense to committing a crime doesn't cut it with me in the least.(no pun intended) Personally I think we are far too lenient on criminals in our "enlightened" society. A few amputated hands might do some good.
 
"A very few people (called "psychopaths") don't seem to have that little voice at all."
 
According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice stats for Dec. 2006, the last count available, almost 2,300,000 people were in prison or jail, in the United States alone, for not having that little voice. These are just the ones who had been caught and convicted...
 
And in Canada: For every 100,000 Canadians, 129 are behind bars. (Jason Logan)  So there are a few Canadians missing that little voice also.
 
"It's also possible to shout it down with ideology, as for instance the cry of "Allah Akbar!" as a preliminary to indiscriminate slaughter."
 
This is a cheap shot. I suppose all of those slaughtered in the name of Christianity, expansion of civilization, progress, or the spread of democracy, just don't count. And before you spout your usual: "I don't agree with the U.S.'s imperialist attitude" just remember that imperial settlers of your fair country Canada massacred tens of thousands of indigenous peoples in order to take their lands. I wonder what your ancestors were screaming as the genocide of the native peoples occured. "I want that parcel by the lake?" 
 
How barbaric was it to purposefully introduce disease into the native population that would wipe them out? The first "germ warfare". Or to forcibly take away 100,000 native children from their families and put them in Residential schools where they were beaten, sexually abused, and the death rate by murder was 50%.
 
From what I read from Amnesty International there is still land grabbing going on... Grassy Narrows for example. Where the native indigenous people have actually been called terrorists by the Canadian government for blockading the roads.  Talk about western imperialism!
 
Barbarism is subjective I suppose....just as terrorism is subjective, genocide, etc....
 
 


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 02 June 2008 at 12:49am
"There have been times in the Islamic states when people did not steal. There was no need for it, because of the affluence, and the law and order - shata's aunt stated this in her post.
 
She did state that, but she didn't elaborate or offer any evidence of it so I pretty much ignored it.  Would anyone care to tell me about?"
 

Waqf has been your special interest area. How do you see its potential as a tool for economic development?

This question leads us directly to Islamic economic history and confirms the point I was trying to make above. You see, in order to envisage about the current potential of the waqfs, we need to understand its achievements in the past. If we look at Islamic/Ottoman economic history, we would note that throughout the Ottoman realms, the waqf, was without any doubt, the most important philanthropic institution. For six centuries, the Ottomans tried and largely succeeded to eradicate poverty through this institution. It was primarily through the waqfs that a voluntary transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor took place and the latter were fed and taken care of. More importantly, health and educational services, essential conditions for the development of human capital, were provided by this institution. Moreover, it was thanks to the waqfs that property rights violations by a powerful state were avoided; magnificent architectural heritage of Islamic civilization was financed and maintained through the centuries; urban districts could cope with the crashing tax burden imposed by an occasionally desperate state; excessive fragmentation of land could be avoided; old age and disability pensions were provided; in an age when insurance as an institution was unknown, rudimentary insurance for the members of a guild or an urban district was provided; infrastructure projects such as bridges, roads, ports, lighthouses, libraries, water conduits, aqueducts, public fountains and pavements were built and maintained; in short practically all the services one can expect to have in a civilized society, save defense, were financed, organized, built and maintained by this system. The waqfs, actually, even aided the defense effort by building and maintaining urban walls and fortresses. Finally, it was through the waqfs and the services they provided that Islam could spread first in Anatolia and then in the Balkans. (Prof. Cizakca Ph.D. in Economics)

 
 


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 02 June 2008 at 12:50am
Waqf in Islam
 
Although the waqf was not recognized before Islam, after its appearance, the Prophet Mohamed has encouraged it as a kind of a sustainable giving or 'sadaqa jariya' that benefits the poor and the needy in a sustainable way. http://www.neareast.org/phil/en/page.asp?pn=28#footnotes - 4 One of the Prophet Mohamed's says that encourages 'sadaqa jariya', the waqf included, is "If the son of Adam dies, his work stops except for three; a sadaqa jareya, a useful science, and a good son who prays for him". http://www.neareast.org/phil/en/page.asp?pn=28#footnotes - 5 The religious origin of waqf in Islam started with a story of the second caliph Omar Ibn el Khattab when he was granted gardens after opening Khaiber and came to the prophet asking him about the best way to make the poor benefit from this land. The prophet Mohamed advised him to eternally withhold the land and spend its revenue on the poor without being subject to be sent, nor donated nor inherited to anybody. http://www.neareast.org/phil/en/page.asp?pn=28#footnotes - 6 Since this incident, waqf has been spread among Muslims at the time of the prophet and continued after him for long centuries. http://www.neareast.org/phil/en/page.asp?pn=28#footnotes - 7 It is allowed in Islam to provide the benefit from waqf to non-Muslims like Christians as Safeya, one of the Prophet's wives made a waqf for her Jew brother. http://www.neareast.org/phil/en/page.asp?pn=28#footnotes - 8

Kinds of Waqf
There are three main kinds of waqfs. The first kind is the Khairy Waqf or charitable waqf, which means withholding one's property and directing its revenues towards different philanthropic goals. The second kind of waqf is the Ahli Waqf or the family waqf. It means withholding the property to the benefit of the members of the family like the wife, the children, and the relatives. http://www.neareast.org/phil/en/page.asp?pn=28#footnotes - 9 Finally, there is the Moshtarak Waqf, or the joint waqf, which is targeting part of the withheld property towards philanthropy and the other part to the family. http://www.neareast.org/phil/en/page.asp?pn=28#footnotes - 10

The Difference between Waqf and Sadaqa
There are differences between the waqf and the sadaqa that should be highlighted:
  1. Sadaqa should go only to the poor and the needy whereas waqf can be directed to both the poor and the rich although the poor has the first priority.
  2. Sadaqa could be owned, sent, or granted while the waqf has to be eternally kept without any intervention in its ownership.
  3. Sadaqa could be on any useful thing like food or clothes, but waqf is only confined to properties that have revenues and could be sustained and withheld. http://www.neareast.org/phil/en/page.asp?pn=28#footnotes - 11


The Role of Waqf in Development
The waqf system had played a vital role in achieving development at the educational, social and economic levels. The educational role of waqf started from the mosque, which was not only a place of praying and worshipping, but was also a source of education where students used to come to learn from instructors specialized in the different branches. Therefore, at the beginning of the Islamic civilization, the mosque used to play the role of the school. However, the form of the educational waqf has evolved to the 'kottab', which was similar to a small school where children are taught reading, writing, Quran, and mathematics. Despite the continuance of the kottab, the educational waqf had developed to normal schools, which had widely increased allover the Islamic society. Meanwhile, schools had direct relations with libraries which people started to put them as waqfs since they were aware of the importance of the book and its role in education. http://www.neareast.org/phil/en/page.asp?pn=28#footnotes - 12

As for the social development, the social services provided by the waqf system were various. A big number of Muslims withheld their properties to build medical centers and hospitals, some of which were built to cure animals. In fact, many of the waqf documents revealed the successful management of the endowed hospitals. http://www.neareast.org/phil/en/page.asp?pn=28#footnotes - 13 Besides the medical services, there were several kinds of social services provided by the waqf, including helping the poor do their pilgrimage, helping poor girls get married, building homes for the orphans, the elderly, and the blind. http://www.neareast.org/phil/en/page.asp?pn=28#footnotes - 14

In addition, the waqf system had a significant role in the economic development for several reasons. Firstly, the waqf facilitated renting shops with low prices in the markets that had waqfs, which led to the decrease of prices and, in turn, activated the commercial movement in these markets. Besides, the markets that had no waqfs had to decrease their prices in order to be able to compete with the waqf markets to maintain their businesses. Secondly, the waqf helped the decrease of the unemployment rate and the creation of job opportunities. Besides, the waqf helped the poor to own money which increased the demand rate on numerous products and services that were going to be confined only to the wealthy segments in the society if the waqf did not exist. On the other hand, the sabeel or the water fountain that was built on the important commercial roads had significant roles in activating the trade and in facilitating the movement of the commercial caravans traveling between the cities and the villages.

-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 02 June 2008 at 1:04am
The very idea of Waqf itself consists of creating and developing a third sector distinct from the profit-motivated private sector and the authority-based public sector, and charging this third sector with the responsibility of performing a group of tasks whose nature make them better achieved if they are made outside the profit motives and the practice of authority. This kind of tasks falls in the arena of righteousness, goodness, kindness, mercy and benevolence. The idea of Waqf indicates that the Islamic system recognizes the importance of the non-profit sector in social and economic development and provides the necessary legal and institutional protection for this sector to function away from the self-interest motives and the power of the government. It also provides this sector with resources that make it a major player in the social and economic life of Muslims and charges it with functions that are desired to be put outside the traditional private and public sectors of the economy.

         Historically, the Islamic society assigned education, health, social welfare and environmental welfare to this third sector. Furthermore, the third sector provided defense services and public utilities in many instances.

         Consequently, we have seen the Muslim society depending essentially on Awqaf for the provision of education at all levels, cultural services, such as libraries and lecturing, etc., scientific research in all material and religious sciences and health care including the provision of physicians’ services, hospital services and medicines. For instance, it is reported that the Island of Sicily, under the Islamic rule had 300 elementary schools. All of them are built by Awqaf; and all of them are provided with Waqf revenues for payment of teachers and school supplies.[3]  The number of high schools and universities in each of the major Islamic cities, such as Al Quds, Damascus, Baghdad, Cairo and Nisapur was in the tense and hundreds. There were universities specialized in different areas of sciences, such as medicine, chemistry and Islamic studies. These included universities like Al Qurawiyin in Fez, Al Azhar in Cairo, Al Nizamiyah in Al Mustansiriya in Baghdad.[4] The Awqaf estates used to provide these universities with building in addition to teaching materials, scientific books, salaries for teachers and stipends for students. Some universities even have students dormitories for both single and married students.[5]

         Scientific libraries were also built by Awqaf and supplied with tense and hundreds of thousands of volumes. Payment for libraries’ employees, supervisors and script writers were provided from the huge revenues of orchards and rentable buildings made Awqaf for the benefit of these libraries.[6] The importance of libraries and books reached a level that forced many Fuqaha who usually do not consider Waqf applicable to mobile assets to make an exception with regard to copies of the Qur’an and scientific books, so there is no disagreement among Fuqaha on the permissibility of making these two kinds of mobile assets into Waqf.[7] In order to facilitate lending books to scholars and researchers, they ruled that it is not permissible to ask book borrowers to provide a collateral even if the Waqf founder made such a provision in the Waqf document. It is thus ruled that such a condition by the founder is invalid.[8] The Islamic history also witnessed specialized Awqaf for scientific research in medicine, pharmacology and other sciences.[9]

         The provision of Awqaf for education is probably responsible for the usually common independence mentality we notice in scholars that kept them away from Rulers. The thing which turned Muslim scholars into popular leaders and outspoken representatives of the society in any confrontation with the authority. It also contributed to reducing the socioeconomic differences by offering education to those who can take it on merit basis rather than on ability to pay for educational services. Hence, the economically poor classes had always equal educational opportunities that allow them to climb faster on the socioeconomic ladder.[10]

         Health services were also provided by Awqaf  throughout the Muslim lands. Hospitals and their equipment, salaries to physicians and their subordinates, schools of medicines and pharmacy and stipends to students were all provided on regular basis by the Awqaf. Special Awqaf were established for specialized medical schools for research in chemistry and for payment for food and medicine for hospital patients.[11] There was even some Awqaf for patients entertainment including people, especially hired for hinting to patients that their illness is mild and curable in a short time.[12]

         Obviously, the Awqaf also provided mosque for worshippers in addition to monasteries for those who devote themselves to worship, graveyards and funeral facilities.

         The area of socio welfare, environment protection and animal care was an area in which the Awqaf had tremendous contributions. The first Waqf on which the Fuqaha established most of their rulings is the Waqf of ‘Umar in Khaibar and it was a Waqf for social assistance to the poor and needy and wayfarers. Supporting the poor has always been a priority among the Awqaf objective to the extent that it has become known in Shari’ah that if a founder did not mention an objective for her/his Waqf, supporting the poor and needy must be considered the de facto objective. In the support of poor and needy, the history of Awqaf went into specific areas. We find, for instance,  several Awqaf for orphans, for widows, for helping poor men and woman with the cost and requirements of marriage, special Awqaf for home furnishing for the poor and needy, for nursing mothers, for battered wives and for people traveling on the roads.[13]

         Additionally, the Awqaf provided for helping in liberating slaves, in caring for young children and in providing drinking water for villages. It also provided for animal and bird care, for repairing river banks and for establishment of frontiers fortification.[14]  (Waqaf Financing)



-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 02 June 2008 at 7:04pm
Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt

"There have been times in the Islamic states when people did not steal. There was no need for it, because of the affluence, and the law and order - shata's aunt stated this in her post.
 
She did state that, but she didn't elaborate or offer any evidence of it so I pretty much ignored it.  Would anyone care to tell me about?"
 
... For six centuries, the Ottomans tried and largely succeeded to eradicate poverty through this institution...
 
Even if I believe that Prof. Cizakca, an Muslim economist from Turkey, is an unbiased authority, how does his article show that people did not steal?
 
 
 
As it happens, I am presently reading "Personal Narrative of a Pilgrimage to Al-Madinah & Meccah", by Sir Richard Francis Burton.  Burton was a European in the mid-nineteenth century who disguised himself as a pilgrim from Afghanistan and joined a Hajj to Mecca.  I know that at some point his own caravan was attacked by robbers.  I haven't got to that part yet, but I've already read several passages where he describes whole clans as thieves, roads where travellers are especially prone to attack, and so on.
 
He writes that thieves will even slip unnoticed into a caravan travelling at night, untie one camel from the line, rejoin the fore and aft camels so the line continues unbroken, and lead the one camel away into the desert with the hapless rider still asleep on it!  Once they are far enough away from the caravan, they awaken the occupant and either kill him on the spot or send him back, naked and on foot, to try to catch up with the group.
 
I'm not sure where I read it (Burton or elsewhere), but I understand there was even a Guild of Thieves in Cairo during the Ottoman Empire.  Apparently if you were robbed, you could appeal to the authorities, who would approach the Guild and negotiate for the return of your property.


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 03 June 2008 at 12:36am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt

"There have been times in the Islamic states when people did not steal. There was no need for it, because of the affluence, and the law and order - shata's aunt stated this in her post.
 
She did state that, but she didn't elaborate or offer any evidence of it so I pretty much ignored it.  Would anyone care to tell me about?"
 
... For six centuries, the Ottomans tried and largely succeeded to eradicate poverty through this institution...
 
Even if I believe that Prof. Cizakca, an Muslim economist from Turkey, is an unbiased authority, how does his article show that people did not steal?
 
 
 
As it happens, I am presently reading "Personal Narrative of a Pilgrimage to Al-Madinah & Meccah", by Sir Richard Francis Burton.  Burton was a European in the mid-nineteenth century who disguised himself as a pilgrim from Afghanistan and joined a Hajj to Mecca.  I know that at some point his own caravan was attacked by robbers.  I haven't got to that part yet, but I've already read several passages where he describes whole clans as thieves, roads where travellers are especially prone to attack, and so on.
 
He writes that thieves will even slip unnoticed into a caravan travelling at night, untie one camel from the line, rejoin the fore and aft camels so the line continues unbroken, and lead the one camel away into the desert with the hapless rider still asleep on it!  Once they are far enough away from the caravan, they awaken the occupant and either kill him on the spot or send him back, naked and on foot, to try to catch up with the group.
 
I'm not sure where I read it (Burton or elsewhere), but I understand there was even a Guild of Thieves in Cairo during the Ottoman Empire.  Apparently if you were robbed, you could appeal to the authorities, who would approach the Guild and negotiate for the return of your property.
 
I did not state that people did not steal. I was not there, I do not know. I stated that there was a time when Islamic states had virtually wiped out poverty.
 
You don't have to believe the author any more than you have to believe any expert in any field who has credentials, is widely recognised, and has authored several books on the subject. With this mentality I can dismiss basically any part of history I so choose by merely not believing it.  I think I'll choose not to believe that Frederick Banting invented insulin. I wasn't there, most of the people repeating this are Canadian and therefore probably biased. Therefore this is just dismissed from history.
 
My point was that there was no need to steal from hunger or want because the state took care of all necessities. So the person stealing was doing so from avarice or simply because they were criminally minded, therefore fully deserving the swift amputation of a hand.


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Nausheen
Date Posted: 03 June 2008 at 2:14am
Auzubillahi minash shaitan ir Rajeem,
Bismillah ir Rahman ir Rahim,
 
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt

Just as a society that hangs, gases, and electrocutes individuals can stoop to heinous acts.  
 
I agree to some extent, and I am not an enthusiastic supporter of capital punishment.  However, once again, you are attacking a straw man.  I am not denying that harsh punishments may sometimes be necessary -- an eye for an eye, a life for a life, capital punishment for capital crimes.  What I am saying (and maybe the fact that I have to keep repeating this is why Nausheen thinks I'm going in circles) is that harsh punishments should not be imposed for trivial crimes.  (And here we go again -- I can already anticipate people returning to Straw Man #2, replying to me that theft is not always trivial...)
 
Nausheen, I will try to reply more directly to you tomorrow, but it's time for Sleepy.
 
Ron, theft is theft, either you took away a cup of coffee, a wallet, a visa card or a dimond ring ... this is not my opinion, rather how Quran looks at theft.
I am not shy to acknowledge that this is how quran sees theft. Your or my opinion about it does not matter. If Allah has decided a thing, then that is it.  You can call muslims stubborn or whatever ... but this is how things are. Again if you read Shasta's Aunt, she is asking a rehtoric which you are avoiding. If I am in an islamic state, and I know that stealing a cup of coffee will earn a prize I will have to live with all my life, am I not crazy to be tempted to steal ??  Think about it and respond - You think it is barbaric is not the point in her Q, and the point is too, too plain. Is it not?
 
As for your other concern ... let me again point out, crimes are not punished by common people, or not even by organizations that call themselves by any name. They have to be punished by a govt. Suicide bombing is not sanctioned in the Quran or sharia. "common people"  or "organizations" have no basis for  executing these crimes in the name of Islam.
 
I am from India, and can tell you that bride burning for dowrey is very common among Hindus there - it has nothing to do with religion. It is a crime according to the state, yet it is practise almost everywhere. Another common crime is abortion of female foetus, amongst the hindus ... and their religion is practically very peaceful. There is just an ignorant mentallity that has to be blamed for it, nothing else.
 
The same can be said about followers of any religious code, who have gone wrong. Trying to find faults in the scriptures for such behaviours is a futile hunt, or rather a negative effort. These ppl have gone wrong, and there is no one reason for it. We can discuss endlessly, to no avail. Contemporary reknowned Muslim scholars have spoken tirelessly against the non-islamic practices taken-on by some - quoting evidences from the same Quran and Hadith which you think are barbaric.  But I dont think I can explain or you can understand on your own unless you try to understand the spirit of Islam, spirit of the Quran and spirit of the sharia.
 
 
 


-------------
Wanu nazzilu minal Qurani ma huwa
Shafaa un wa rahmatun lil mo'mineena
wa la yaziduzzalimeena illa khasara.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 03 June 2008 at 7:12pm
(No time for a proper reply tonight, but I'll definitely come back to this.  I think I may start a new topic, because some of the comments above suggest a whole different way of looking at this.  Stay tuned...)

-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 04 June 2008 at 6:24pm
Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt

Originally posted by Israfil

Shasta's Aunt
 
If you know anything about law you know there are 3 branches of government right, each having their respective laws in acocrdance to what actions transgress them. You should be aware that State laws vary from state to state each giving its own account of the severity of crimes that are committed. I never said the system is flawless or perfect, but its better than laws I've personally read from other countries. For instance I find it ridiculous that if you speak out against the Egyptian president openly you risk serving time (I believe minimum is 6 months in jail).  I highly doubt you are a multi-cultural social complainer because most of your post are generated towards the "west" but that is another story. I also thinky uo have little knowledge about law.
 
What you find on the internet and what you see on news does not always count as reality. Of course there are politics in the system such as light sentences, revolving doors etc, but the reality is you cannot change a lot of it. Politics just like systems of government are like pendelums. Looking at pieces of history does not make you right (e.g. looking at William Clinton's marital transgression).  My point is, is that laws look at trivbial crimes based on country, demographic etc.
 
 
 
I do know a little bit about the law. It is rather off-putting to have you continually telling people what they do and do not know. You actually have no idea what profession I call my own nor my level of education. For all you know I might be a retired attorney with a second Master's in Religion and Theology.  
 
Contrary to some who post here, I actually read books, newspapers, and take part in civic and social activities. My sole source of info is not the internet, although it can be a useful tool if you know what you are looking for.
 
Yes, most of my comments are directed towards the ills in this country because this is my country and I live here. I want it to be a better place than it currently is. In this country you can be sentenced indefinitely to Gitmo merely because you are a Muslim. I think 6 months in jail for speaking out against Egypt's president doesn't seem too harsh in comparison.  
 
And if you don't look at history how can you learn from it? Our history is what defines us and hopefully what causes us to correct the paths we choose that are wrong.
 
By the way, our country was originally based upon the principal of  "government of the people, by the people, for the people", but somewhere along the way this has gotten lost.  We control the government, not the other way around.
I saw an interview with a French newsman who was saying that in France the politicians could never get away with covering up and lying like they do in the U.S. because the media would never allow it. He said that in France the politicians are afraid of the people, not the other way around, like it is in the U.S. Because in France if the people get fed up they get rid of the politicians.  Our country USED to be that way, and hopefully it will be that way again.
 
 
 
The reason I do this S.A. because in my experience on this forum a lot of people make comments with little knowledge. I've read whole posts on false accusations, plagerism, and other ill-advised posts her. When I read a post and know for a fact that it is wrong and misguided I will let the individual know. Do I repeat this? Yes I do and I'll admit it. But I too, am at fault for this myself in the real world too and have been corrected for it as well.
 
as a citizen you have every right to criticize your country but comparing Gitmo to 6 months in jail in Egypt is ridiculous. If you were an attorney then I'd have to criticize how you passed the bar exam because any person of the law knows that is comparing apples to oranges. You don't get sent to Gitmo because you're Muslim and you know it. I've bustend young Muslims in L.A. committing various crimes and their faith has been recorded as procedure and never had we even had to consider them "terrorist" or otherwise nor would they be sent to Gitmo.
 
as far as the comment you made about the Frech govermne tI'm not so sure on how their lawmakers are afraid of the people. I believe in every major country that is in power there is corruption, period. If I were to generate a hypothetical counterargument I would say they are not afriad of the people they are afraid of getting exposed. America will never be like what it was in the 1500-1600's and I hope it never turns that way. Our country is evolving and hopefully for the better.
 
As for the people, sometimes there needs to be a shift in power. the people are not always educated in making powerful decisions. If laws were generated by the people then we would have a ban on gay marriages, more security in Muslim neighborhoods, etc. come on, people in this country don't even know what a superdelegate is and you want to put power in the hands of these people? I want a balance I don't want power. Do I want individual rights? Yes, but I believe that if the pendelum swings in favor of people then people can abuse power just like their elected officials.


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 05 June 2008 at 3:14am
"If you were an attorney then I'd have to criticize how you passed the bar exam"
 
I did not pooh pooh your claims of having a PhD in neuroscience, even though you spelled neuroscience incorrectly: "Me being a black man with an IQ of 125 with a PH.D. in nueroscience and M.S. in Clinical Psychology I'm sure makes me the 1% in his mind concerning the intelligence of blacks." 
 
As for Gitmo and the legality of those held there, the detainees legal status remains unresolved and they have yet to receive due process. In the meantime over 400 have been released after years of detention with no explanation and no formal charges brought against them. Their only crime was being Muslim. The remaining detainees are held in a legal limbo in which our government considers them "non-persons" with absolutely no rights regarding proper representation, legal status, or pending charges. They are not even afforded the basic rights of prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention. The U.S. is breaking both domestic and International laws in its treatment of these prisoners.
 
Perhaps not every person in this country is well educated regarding decision making, but our very Constitution affords the right of every person in this country to have a say in how it is run. People are supposed to hold the power, no government entity should ever control more power than the people it serves.
 
Democracy is based on a system of checks and balances in which the three branches of government theoretically keep each other in check. However, since the advent of the Bush regime the executive branch has taken power and bullied it's way into an almost totalitarian regime in which the other branches, and our individual rights as citizens, have come under increasing pressure to follow the lead or be labeled a traitor, a terrorist, or have your life ruined. "You are either with us or against us.".  Even the rulings of the judicial branch regarding the treatment of afore mentioned Gitmo detainees have been ignored by the Bush regime. Who has given this branch of government the authority to ignore the Constitution?
 
I am not saying Billy Bob should be in control of the country, but I am saying that no branch of government should become so powerful that any citizen should fear speaking against it. And if you do not believe there are American citizens living in fear, ask an Arab American how comfortable they would feel protesting against the Bush government. Have you heard of the "October Plan" and the over 200 detained? Have you forgotten the raids after Sept 11th in which over 5000 Muslims were rounded up and over 1000 detained in this country with no charges levied against them, and no contact with attorneys or their families. What about the mandatory registration of Muslim males, during which many were detained? 
At least in Egypt the person arrested for speaking out against the president knows why he is in jail and the length of his sentence. There are still Muslim men being held by this country who have had no charges brought against them and who have been denied the right of any type of legal council.
 
 
 


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt



Print Page | Close Window