In the Name of God بسم الله
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'hudud'.
The search index is currently processing. Current results may not be complete.
Scenario: I was thinking about the scenario and curious about it. So here it is. Suppose there is a man A who has killed someone but he was punished by islamic law (like by chopping of his hands). There is an another man B who also has killed someone but he somehow didn't got the punishment but he repented with the pure heart and suppose he was actually repented by god. Now, here are my questions: 1. In the above scenario, who will be punished in hereafter? If neither then isn't this against adal that Man A was inflicted with the punishment and the Man B was save from his hands chopped? 2. Since god has discussed the punishment of here and hereafter, if someone gets punished here, will he/she will be punished in hereafter too? Thanks.
https://yaqeeninstitute.org/en/jonathan-brown/stoning-and-hand-cutting-understanding-the-hudud-and-the-shariah-in-islam He says a lot of insightful things here on punishment in general and hudud in particular. A few things in particular stood out (although there is much more that is worthy of reflection)- 1. Hudud punishments are harsh, and they need to be to function as a deterrent. As per Bentham, the deterrent effect of any threat of punishment depends on (i) the severity of the punishment, and (ii) the chance of being caught. It was much easier to get away with a crime 1400 years ago then it is today, so to achieve the same deterrent effect, the severity/harshness of the punishment needed to be greater. Today, on the other hand, with advances forensics, CCTV, police etc. its harder to get away with crime, so the chance of getting caught is greater. Therefore to achieve the same level of deterrence, the harshness of the punishment doesn't need to be as high. 2. Because hudud punishments are harsh, they are deemed to be cruel. But cruelty is relative to social and cultural norms. Is being flogged really worse than losing your freedom? 3. The costly nature of prisons, and the fact that they have failed at reform. Criminals are surrounded by other criminals, drug use is rampant, and sexual violence is widespread. 4. Many modern objections to hudud arent about the punishments themselves, but that acts such as fornication should be regarded as crimes in the first place. 5. Having said all that, historically many hudud were rarely implemented, eg for sarq and adultery. This is because of the stringent criteria required for them to be applicable. 6. What is the point of having hudud that are rarely, if ever, implemented? It's a message to people that certain actions are reprehensible and worthy of severe sanction. An example would be the threat of £1000 fine for littering - no one is ever fined this much (perhaps there are 1 or 2 cases, but the point is that it sends a message).
A muslim harmed another muslim leaving colourful bruises and a cut lip on his victim. In order for the man to be forgiven by Allah, his victim must forgive him first, and the man must pay his victim recompense for the damages done to his body. How is such compensation determined? Is the compensation gender specific; meaning do the amounts differ when the victim is a muslimah? What is the proper term for such compensation?
(salam) I live in a city ravaged with street thugs and armed robbers, and I'm now considering keeping a pistol in my car so I can shoot robbers that try to rob me. This is how I see it: When they point the gun at me, I surrender everything to them, and they (probably two guys on a motorcycle) ride off. I grab the pistol from underneath my seat, step out and shoot them in the back. What I wanted to ask was whether it is permissible to kill someone right after they rob you at gunpoint. Only then will I do it. So what do our scholars say?
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.