RESPONSES TO SUSPICIONS - PART FOUR - FRONTIERS IN ISLAM

Rudud ealaa shabahat aljuz' alrrabie : alhudud fi al'islam

A paper entitled " Responses to Misconceptions" presented by Dr. Abdul Karim Zaidan at the Third International Conference on Biography and the Sunnah of the Prophet held in the State of Qatar on the 5th of Muharram 1400 AH, on November 25, 1979 AD .   ,Dr. Abdul Karim Zidane in this research responses to the four suspicions of repeated or ignorant haters of the law of God , namely , (polygamy, the Prophet 's position ﷺof Quraizah, wars and invasions in Islam, the border in Islam).

Introduction :

In Islamic law, there are penalties for what are considered crimes in the rule of Islamic law, and these punishments are of three types (the first ) and it is called the hudud (the second ) the qisas and the blood money ( and the third ) the ta'zir .

And the limits are the punishments assessed by the street for some crimes that are truly obligatory for God These punishments are: The punishment for the crime of adultery and its amount is flogging, discretionary punishment, or stoning. The penalty for drinking alcohol and the amount of flogging is a limited number. And the penalty for theft, which is cutting off the hand and the leg from disagreement, or murder, crucifixion and exile .

The penalty for defamation is a limited number of flogging, and the meaning of defamation is to accuse the slander of the crime of fornication. And the punishment for the prostitute is the killing of prostitutes. And the penalty for apostasy, which is the killing of the apostate, after three days of repatriation .

These punishments are for considerable legal evidence, with the consensus of the jurists, and they do not differ in these penalties, but rather differ in the conditions of their obligation, and this is detailed in the various books of jurisprudence .

Objections :

Some have raised suspicions about these punishments, expressly objecting to them at times and concealing this objection at another time. Among their suspicions and objections to these penalties are the following :

These punishments are all too harsh and thus far from fair .

That in some of them is a waste of human humanity as in the flogging of a person in the punishment for adultery . 

In some of them, it interferes with personal freedom as well as the punishment for adultery. Fornication, if it is done willingly without coercion, may not be punished because it is a prejudice to human freedom, and the same is the punishment for drinking alcohol .

The punishment for the apostate includes the meaning of coercion on religion and interference with a person's freedom of belief .

Some of them include the amputation of organs and legs, and this is an old method of punishment that must be eliminated, in addition to the disruption of the punished persons from earning and their becoming a burden on society .

These are the entirety of their objections that they raise to the narrative: the so-called hudud, and these objections are meager and do not prove to the objective discussion, and we respond briefly to them below in the same sequence of paragraphs, we say

First: With regard to its cruelty and its remoteness from justice, as they claim, we say :

In every penalty, a sufficient amount of pain must be available to deter the one who enters himself into committing the crime, and this pain is directly proportional to the gravity of the crime, and pain is something cruel in nature. Other Sharia punishments The Almighty said (and a bad reward is like it). These punishments achieved deterrence to the extent possible when they were applied, but when these crimes were suspended, these crimes increased and statistics indicate that .

Second: the claim of wasting humans in the skin

The claim of human beings being wasted in the skin is rejected by the fact that the adulterer is the one who wasted his human being when he allowed himself to abolish in another vessel, and he permitted himself to go down to the level of the animal in sexual intercourse, and such a person needs the skin after his descent to this level .

As for the flogging of the drinker, it is due to the Shariah’s keenness on the mind of man from idle or fading and the consequent feet of criminality. As for his flogging in the crime of defamation, it is because the slanderer wants to contaminate the reputation and display of the slandered and spread immorality in society, even though Islam wants it to be a pure, chaste and clean society, even from the words of obscenity as well as the act of immorality .

It may be said here: that the crime of disbelief and apostasy is greater than the crime of adultery, and if a person says to another Muslim, “Oh infidel,” this means that he accused him of apostasy from Islam, and with this the slanderer is not punished with eighty lashes while if a person says to a woman (Oh an adulterer) and is unable to prove Because he flogs eighty lashes, or is there no difference in this and far from justice? The answer to that is that the slandered with blasphemy and apostasy can deny the slanderer by uttering the two testimonies, so he says I bear witness that there is no god but God, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of God, but what does the slandered woman do with adultery to deny the slanderer? One of the natures of people is to seize the evil word even if it is from the pure ones. We have the best evidence in the story of the deception and the throwing of the Lady, Mother of the Believers, Aisha al-Siddiqah, may God be pleased with her .

For this reason, the Islamic Sharia has made the punishment of slanderous in order to preserve the honor of Muslims and Muslim women, and to protect society from saying obscenity, getting used to it, and underestimating it, because it leads to underestimation by the act of immorality .

Third: The claim that some of them interfere with a person's freedom

The claim that in some of them interferes with the freedom of the person as in the punishment for adultery and drinking alcohol, it is not the case as they claimed, because the freedom of a person stops when it is a tool of harm and corruption in society, and fornication is the corruption and destruction of homes and displacement of children. The consent in fornication does not change anything from the crime of fornication, because the offer is something in which it is not permissible to give and give. Islam wants the safety of the family, the preservation of the tongue and the not to lose the children, and this happens by preventing adultery, and preventing it is by prohibiting and punishing it, so it is not permissible for an honorable, jealous man to object to the punishment for adultery, but this shouting may be issued by those who do not care about honor, honor or many mistakes in society .

As for the punishment for drinking alcohol and that it interferes with human freedom, the response to this statement is that drinking alcohol leads to crime, and society has the right to prevent crime and block its outlets, and the person must submit to the restrictions of society that are beneficial to him and the individual himself .

Fourth: As for the punishment of the apostate, it means coercion to believe

As for the punishment of the apostate, and it means coercion to believe and that it interferes with the freedom of belief, the answer is that the apostate is a man who was a Muslim and apostate, meaning that he committed a crime called (apostasy), so he is punished for this crime, and the reason for it being a crime is that a Muslim by his Islam adhered to the provisions of Islam, and his coolness would have revoked this Commitment, and it is known that there is a punishment that did not violate or break his commitment, and the punishment may be the execution of a person, such as one who betrays his homeland and spies on his country, and the punishment for this traitorous citizen is death, so there is no surprise in killing an apostate. In spite of this, he waits three days, and if he repents and turns away from his apostasy, the punishment will be waived. The punishment of the apostate has nothing to do with freedom of belief or coercion into religion. Rather, it is a punishment for the crime of apostasy if it is committed by a Muslim .

Fifthly: their claim that amputation is an old method

Their claim that the amputation of organs in punishment is an old method and leads to the punishment becoming a burden on society, a refuted claim, that the lesson is not new, so what is new is acceptable and not every old is rejected, but the balance of acceptance and rejection is validity, and there is no doubt that cutting the hand is a valid punishment because it is a deterrent To the extent sufficient, and he has performed a task in the past to prevent crime and protect people from their money. As for the imprisonment penalty for the thief at the present time, it has not deterred the thieves, and the crimes of theft are constantly increasing. The prison has become a forum in which thieves gather and exchange their experiences in the world of theft and fraud !!

As for the punishment and the severing of his hand becoming a burden on society, this is not correct because the severed hand can do some work, and even if it becomes a burden, this is better than being a tool of terror, sabotage and panic in society. The hand in any case is lesser than the head, and the head is cut off in some crimes for which the perpetrators deserve to be cut off the head, so the hand must be cut off - which is inferior to the head - in the crimes for which the perpetrator deserves to be cut off his hand .

May God bless our master Muhammad and his family and companions, and praise be to God, Lord of the worlds .