Adultery
-
Peace all,
Corporal Punishment - Effectiveness
Advocates of corporal punishment argue that it is more likely than any alternative to prevent offenders from committing further criminal acts, and that it is also an exceptionally strong deterrent to potential offenders. These claims have been subjected to some empirical investigation, especially by the Cadogan Committee, whose research was continued in 1960 by the Home Office Research Unit for ACTO.
Individual deterrence. Part of the research carried out by the Cadogan Committee and ACTO covered 3,023 cases of robbery with violence (virtually the only offense for which corporal punishment was imposed) between 1921 and 1947. Offenders were divided into two groups those previously convicted of serious crimes and those not previously convicted. In both categories, offenders who were not flogged showed slightly better subsequent records. Those who were flogged seemed slightly more likely to be convicted again of robbery with violence, although the numbers were small and the differences not statistically significant (Cadogan Committee; Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders). These findings suggested that flogging was not especially effective as an individual deterrent, but they were not conclusive the groups of those flogged and not flogged were not properly matched, nor were the sentences randomly assigned, for some judges habitually made more use of the penalty than others.
General deterrence. The Cadogan Committee devoted special attention to five cases of corporal punishment used as an exemplary sentence in response to major outbreaks of crimes for which, according to public opinion, the penalty was particularly suitable. The committee found that in some cases the facts plainly contradicted such beliefs and that reductions in crime could just as plausibly be attributed to causes other than the penalties imposed on offenders. It also noted that the incidence of robbery with violence in England and Wales had declined steadily in the years before World War I notwithstanding infrequent and decreasing use of corporal punishment, whereas in the postwar years it had tended to increase despite a much greater and increasing resort to floggings. It was also shown that between 1890 and 1934 the incidence of robbery in England and Wales (where corporal punishment might have served as a deterrent) declined more slowly than in Scotland, where corporal punishment was not inflicted for those offenses (Cadogan Committee).
ACTO also compared the incidence of robbery with violence in England and Wales before and after corporal punishment was abolished as a judicial penalty in 1948. The number of robberies reported to the police increased steadily during and after World War II, although corporal punishment was employed more frequently than before the war. After 1948, however, there was a marked downward trend, and until 1957 instances of robbery remained well below the 1948 level. The causes of this reduction were unknown, but ACTO inferred that corporal punishment had not been a strong deterrent immediately before its abolition and noted that abolition was not followed by an increase in the offenses for which it had previously been imposed (Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders). In short, no evidence proved that corporal punishment provided more deterrence than imprisonment, to which it commonly served as an alternative penalty before abolition. Canadian and New Zealand studies confirmed these findings (Canada, Parliament; New Zealand Department of Justice).
Reference
http//law.jrank.org/pages/739/Corporal-Punishment-Effectiveness.html
-
Peace all,
"The victim was tied to a post or on a triangle of wood and stripped, receiving the specified number of strokes on the back. A sentence of 100 or 120 lashes was equivalent to a death sentence; but few lived to receive so many. Even twenty lashes could maim; with the specially extended Great Knout twenty blows could kill.
The executioner was usually a criminal who had to pass through a probation and regular training, being let off his own penalties in return for his services. Peter the Great is traditionally accused of knouting his son Alexis to death, and there is little doubt that he was actually beaten till he died, whoever was the executioner."
Reference
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knout
-
The professor explained that he carried out a study and found that grasshoppers have ears in their legs ,which he is going to prove ;
"I have trained this grasshopper to jump when I say 'jump'." The professor demonstrates this a few times.
Then the professor cuts off the grasshoppers legs.
"See. Now I say 'jump' and the grasshopper no longer responds. So it is obvious the grasshopper has ears in its legs".
siki
-
Peace all,
"Even when not strictly public, humiliation can still be a psychologically "painful" aspect of punishment because of the presence of witnessing peers (such as fellow prisoners), relatives, staff or other onlookers, or simply because the tormentor witnesses how self-control is broken down. This is also true for punishments in class."
Reference
http//www.answers.com/topic/public-humiliation
Public humiliation is legitimate punishment
By Jennifer Lozano
Issue date 6/19/02 Section OpinionLong gone are the days of public stonings, hangings or heads rolling after the fateful drop of the guillotine. However, State District Judge Henry Poe is promoting his own form of publicly shameful punishment for those who choose to deviate from the laws that govern our social existence. Only Poe's punishment is more reminiscent of Nathaniel Hawthorne's shameful Scarlet Letter, in which his infamous adulterous character was forced to wear an A on her breast for the remainder of her life.According to the Houston Chronicle, as part of Poe's probation terms, he often makes probationers march a specific number of times a year wearing signs that tell the public what he or she was convicted of.
As a result of legislation that Poe helped write, he has sentenced several hundred probationers to sign carrying. Although many find the practice futile and harsh, the judge has retrieved an important element from our social punishment history that has been abandoned, and he has implemented it successfully in modern society while still maintaining a keen modern perspective on the prisoner's right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
The principle behind sign carrying is relatively simple. Most people do not enjoy being publicly humiliated; therefore, a criminal will feel the public scorn for the act that he or she committed. Ideally, they will more fully accept responsibility and will feel remorse. In addition, public citizens who view the fate of the fallen man may be deterred from committing the same crime.
When a person views a probationer wearing a sign stating that he or she murdered a man, they are reminded that criminals do get caught, they do go to jail and they do reap the consequences of their actions for years to come.
Also, according to the Chronicle, another reason society has turned to public shame is because of its frustration with the ineffectiveness of prisons to punish and rehabilitate. It is easy for the public to believe criminals are receiving short sentences in prisons fully equipped with televisions, weight rooms and the opportunity to refine their criminal behavior skills. The astounding number of repeat offenders who do not seem the slightest bit effected by the threat of returning to prison solidifies Americans' lack of faith in the prison system. Therefore, even though studies do not show that public shame better rehabilitates or punishes criminals than prison, it allows society to have the much-needed satisfaction in visually knowing they have adequately punished criminals. Society wants its moral attitude toward crime expressed and public shame does that, Dan Kahan, a Yale University law professor, told the Chronicle.
It cannot be expected that all criminals will have a more adequate punishment and rehabilitation as a result of Poe's shame punishment. To assume this would imply that every criminal has the same acute human emotions of guilt and humiliation as the rest of the population and, if this were the case, there would be a significantly lower number of crimes.However, it is very plausible that for some probationers, the public display of humiliation will help them take responsibility for their actions and think twice about committing a crime again. For example, the Chronicle depicts the story of Michael Hubacek, a 23 year-old who pleaded no contest to intoxicated manslaughter charges and now claims the sign carrying has helped him atone for his mistakes and help others avoid similar ones. If shame punishment has this effect on even a few individuals, it will benefit our society.
Although public shame punishment may seem digressive and cruel, it must be remembered that when an individual commits an act of criminal behavior, they are not respecting their community and therefore should expect to receive a sub-par level of respect from their community. Whether as a means of deterrence, punishment or atonement, judges should not be dissuaded to implement this practice in their probation terms and should encourage others to do the same.
Reference
http//media.www.thebatt.com/media/storage/paper657/news/2002/06/19/Opinion/Public.Humiliation.Is.Legitimate.Punishment-518040.shtml
Public shaming of prostitutes
http//www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/08/news/shenzhen.php
-
Salam
Public sex is not something you do because you're sick, needy , under influence of rage or by mistake or for any other reason. Its punishment is not a deterrent for offenders, it is a primary deterrent. Why on earth would one want to have sex in public when they cannot even throw doubts on the evidence?
Maybe the severity of the punishment and the evidence that's beyond any doubt are set so that no one would even think about it.
-
peace Angel
I have an ! why don't you friends take W along, when you stroll in the park next time?
siki ;D
peace siki,
I can?t W is Z?s sister, as if she?s gonna grass her own sister up! nope
I guess me X and Y need to be brave enough to allow being whipped muscle,
Lets hope those lashes are symbolic and not severe pr
-
Peace "ayman",
Peace JK,
It is a fact that addicts exchanging needles is far more negligent and risky than two people who know each other having sex and using a condom. How come there is no punishment for the addict?
JK- Who said addict shouldnt be punished? Ofcourse drugs like heroin which are needled are to be banned and anyone found with them need to be ounished. This is out of qs. 2ndly you rightly added "using a condom" and i mentioned in another post that it is difficult to decide whether one can term it as adultery if a condom has been used.
It is also a fact that children can be conceived without sexual intercourse such as through sperm banks and fertility clinics. How come there is no punishment for fertility clinics and sperm donors and takers?
JK- Injecting sperm artificially without being married to the one who posesses it could well fall under the category of adultery and infact even the Mullahs, who are otherwise so illogical noted this.
On the other hand, pornography is not a private matter but is a deliberate exhibition of private matter to corrupt society. So it is punishable. We are also told not to come near pornography/"zina" this means that it is not only about not doing it but also watching it or tolerate it in any shape or form.
JK- Oh common what if the intention was to stimulate sex between married couples and only those are watching it? Its a moral issue.
No, 43 is clear even married couples can be zani and zaniyat TOGETHER. The issue is not about marriage at all. It is about whether there are four witnesses or not. Given the prohibition against spying and the sanctity of the home in the great reading, the only way you would get valid four witnesses is if the couple deliberetly had sex in public. This is pornography. The passage doesn't say "if the couple were married then the accusers are the liars according to the god".
Peace,
Ayman
JK- As i said this doesnt make any sense at all to me. GOD Bless!
-
Peace bro "tanveer"
Peace bro Khizar,
The pain sensing neuron endings are not just present in the skin but the muscles too. Haven't you heard of "myalgias" or "muscle aches and pains" ? The excess fat in certain parts of the female body would "pad" the muscles from the pain causing stimulus; thus in men muscle pain sensors will be stimulated more than in women in certain parts due to lashes.
JK- So if it's in certain PARTS only, one can avoid those in men.
Any scientific proof of women's skin being more delicate than men's in general ?
JK- By delicate i mean soft and tender and not rough and tough like tht of a male. This is everyday observation.
Women actually have to deal with delivery of a baby which can be one of the most painful experiences in the world, and thus have better ability to endure pain than men !
JK- And here wer back at the certain parts issue. Bro this claim of yours seems absurd. Why do you think females are so much more warned not to indulge in violent fighting sports like boxing for example? Obviously because they are much more delicate and their reproductive system is even more delicate. If anything happens to that then there could be serious problems for childbirth and for the child itself. GOD Bless!
-
Peace Samia
Those women who commit Fahisha?. (415)
If two of your men guilty?????? (416)
According to the Quraan Fahisha is a broad category of evil/shameful acts including sex out side marriage even for/with unmarried people. Since the punishment in 415 is only a sort of house arrest surely this can not be same as zina.
As for men, the verse (416) says two men.
What is your opinion on this?
-
Peace JonnyK
On 243,
Before the conviction a person can not be called a zani or a zania.
243 does not say the zani and the zania WERE married to each other.
When the verse says ?zani only shall marry a zania? that means after the conviction and after the punishment of caning a zani or a zania if they want to get married in the future they shall only marry such people who have been convicted for such acts earlier or those who set up partners.
This is clear from the command ?It is forbidden for the believers to marry such? (zani, zanias and mushrik)
-
Peace bro Tanveer
If the Mullah break Allahs command the Mullah is answerable to Him. Mullahs are not following the most important commands so how do we expect them to follow the force of caning. Our life and our deaths are in His hands and not in Mullahs and without His authority Mullah can not do the least harm to a believer.
We can not abolish or bend Allahs command because people will misinterpret, misunderstand or misuse. The Quraan says people will do exactly that.
Research can be for or against and social statistics are subjective and mostly inconclusive. It?s the way you analyze it and interpret it. Gods law has to be carried out notwithstanding what research says and God does not command in a vacuum; it is part of a system, and a just system at that. In poverty stricken India with 1B population the prison population is about 300,000. In China it is 1.3B to 1.5M. In US and UK it is 300M to 2M and 55M to 80,000 respectively. We can sit all day analyze and argue the reasons for and against these statistics the social economic conditions in these countries and their criminal justice systems. Not that we should neglect research and statistics. We should use them for better decision making and use them for the betterment of the society but we shall not hold them above Allahs law. I am not implying you said that.
Punishment will leave marks or scars physically and possibly mentally but the scars marks and even the devastation caused by the punished to many innocent man, woman and child to families and even to a whole society should not be neglected.
-
The professor explained that he carried out a study and found that grasshoppers have ears in their legs ,which he is going to prove ;
"I have trained this grasshopper to jump when I say 'jump'." The professor demonstrates this a few times.
Then the professor cuts off the grasshoppers legs.
"See. Now I say 'jump' and the grasshopper no longer responds. So it is obvious the grasshopper has ears in its legs".
siki
As a matter of fact yes The Grasshopper's ears are located in his legs ;D
siki
-
Peace
On pornography,
If we look at both the verses the 4 witnesses are mentioned both apply to WOMEN; One relating to ?bringing a charge against a Mohsinat? (243) and the other on ?women committing Fahisha? (415) .
Does that mean only women should be charged for pornography since in otherverses men are mentioned the 4 witnesses are not included? Does this mean men are exempted from the charge of phonography.
-
Peace
On pornography,
If we look at both the verses the 4 witnesses are mentioned both apply to WOMEN; One relating to ?bringing a charge against a Mohsinat? (243) and the other on ?women committing Fahisha? (415) .
Does this mean we can bring charges against men witout having to podue evidence?
Since the quraan is addressing both genders, the masculine in the addressee is not specific (accommodates both genders- generic masculine), and it entails that the feminine in the same verse related to this masculine is also generic (accommodates both genders), and should be understood as 'the opposite sex'; of course unless it is clear without doubt that the masculine or the feminie are specific (to their gender only).
It's good you brought this to attention. The verse is a proof that you cannot testify against your partner if you do not bring the four witnesses (kiss and tell) (and by logic you can't testify against someone else), which also shows that pregnancy is not proof of zena, because the pregnant woman cannot testify against her partner. Which, as a conclusion, proofs furthermore that punishment is not for the act, but for the act in public.
-
Peace bro Warner,
I agree that scientific studies cannot supersede God's laws but the question is Have you interpreted God's law properly ?
Firstly, It is a scientific fact that in corporal punishment by flogging, it is impossible to maintain a constant and equal force in each flogging, which will put a recipient at risk of severe injury and possible death and will not be fair for two people receiving flogging for the same crime because they will be getting different force on average.
Secondly, you still haven't answered that according to al-qur'aan how will you determine the upper limit for the force used ? The Mullah killing a zaani by using his full force in flogging will be justified by your theory of "let compassion not move you" referring to force of flogging; it will not be a misuse of the law then. He can justify it by saying that if he used less than full force that would be "letting compassion move him", and according to your theory that will be perfectly justified and will fall within the limits of the law.
Thirdly, the verse clearly says that "let not compassion move you IN THE SYSTEM PRESCRIBED BY GOD". The question is WHAT IS THE SYSTEM PRESCRIBED BY GOD ? The answer according to 242 is 100 LASHES WITH PUBLIC WITNESSING (with no mention of severity). So "let not compassion move you" will apply only to the number of lashes and the public witnessing and not the severity, because the severity is not mentioned. The God does not run out of words; He could have easily said "do not be too mild, nor too forceful", but He makes no mention of the severity of force. The emphasis, therefore, is clearly on the public shaming and humiliation aspect of flogging, which I have already shown that it can be an "azaab" and an effective worldly deterrent.
Fourthly, suppose you are witnessing a public flogging of a zaani; WON'T YOU BE WITNESSING THE AZAAB OF PUBLIC HUMILIATION OF THE ZAANI ?
-
Peace Samia
Samia Does this mean we can bring charges against men witout having to podue evience?
Yes, you can bring charges against a man without 4 witnesses and will not get lashed 80 times. You can not convict him but can bring charges. Whether the charges will bring about a conviction will be entirely on the evidence produced which is same for both men and women. Here the Quran protects the women above men from slander, possibly because they are more prone & vulnerable to slander and also will suffer greater consequences and social impact than men; convicted or not.
We are not dealing with the evidence and the conviction but only the accusation in 243.
You can not claim the addressing both genders here since the verse is very specific to muhsana_ti and not generally women. Do we have any support from the Quran when the feminine gender is mentioned where it applies to masculine as well and where something specific as Muhsanat. The verses in Chapter 4 and 24 dealing with similar issues are quite clear in identifying the genders separately.
Even 2412 dealing on the same issue is referring to a woman.
The following verses on similar or same subject are quite specific.
33 58
Yusuf Ali And those who annoy believing men and women undeservedly bear (on themselves) a calumny and a glaring sin.Transliteration Wal lazina yuzu_nal muminina wal mumina_ti bigairi maktasahu_ faqadihtamalu_ buhta_naw wa itsmam mubina_
24 23
Yusuf Ali Those who slander chaste women indiscreet but believing are cursed in this life and in the Hereafter for them is a grievous PenaltyTransliteration In nal lazina yarmu_nal muhsana_til ga_fila_til mumina_ti luinu_ fid dun ya_ wal a_hirah wa lahum aza_bun azim
Samia It's good you brought this to attention. The verse is a proof that you cannot testify against your partner if you do not bring the four witnesses (kiss and tell) (and by logic you can't testify against someone else), which also shows that pregnancy is not proof of zena, because the pregnant woman cannot testify against her partner. Which, as a conclusion, proofs furthermore that punishment is not for the act, but for the act in public.
Besides other reasons someone should be completely out of their mind to testify against their partner because they will automatically be party to the act and if one person is proven guilty the other will be implicated thus punished. I would say it is virtual suicide.
Samia (and by logic you can't testify against someone else)
I can not understand you here.
Samia which also shows that pregnancy is not proof of zena, because the pregnant woman cannot testify against her partner.
Pregnancy is not a proof of zina or even of sex. Artificial insemination, surrogate mothers, miracle births and what not? If the pregnant woman testifies against the partner in fact she is testifying against her own self , which I think should be in a state of complete insanity.
Samia Which, as a conclusion, proofs furthermore that punishment is not for the act, but for the act in public
I do not see how anything you mentioned above proves pornography or public sex infact the verses clearly negates the pornography theory
-
Salaam wrner
Do we have any support from the Quran when the feminine gender is mentioned where it applies to masculine as well and where something specific as Muhsanat.
Yes.
-
Verse 314 zuyiina lin-naasi 7ubbush-shahawaati minan-nisaa'i walbaneen
Beautiful for people is the love of things they covet women, children...
(while I was reading the translation by King Fahad Complex, I found that it reads beautiful for "MEN"! So, naas people, suddenly became men. This is because the traditional translation could not accommodate that nisaa' could also contain rijaal, or else it does not mean women.). -
443 ...aw laamastumun-nisaa' And if you are ill or .....or have been in contact with women...
-
55 "This one has mu7sanaat and mu'minaat"
Unless, of course, you think that these verses do not address women.
33 58
Yusuf Ali And those who annoy believing men and women undeservedly bear (on themselves) a calumny and a glaring sin.I presume that "annoy undeservedly" would mean bring charges against them without evidence. So, it is not as you said we can bring charges against men without evidence. You have the rule in this verse, so whenever you find "accusation withoud evidence", remember that it concerns both men and women. If the quraan repeats every verse twice to accommodate both genders, it will be too boring and too big to read. And after all, it is a reading for people who think, reflect and contemplate
-
-
Peace Tanveer
Tanveer Firstly, It is a scientific fact that in corporal punishment by flogging, it is impossible to maintain a constant and equal force in each flogging, which will put a recipient at risk of severe injury and possible death and will not be fair for two people receiving flogging for the same crime because they will be getting different force on average.
Unless we used mechanized flogging with sensors and computers.
The victim of someone?s wrong doing and in case of infidelity the suffering of the innocent party is not same too. It might be different from person to person. Some may shrug it off. Some may lose their jobs, minds and even their lives due to the devastation.
How do you select a cow when God asks you to sacrifice one?
Tanveer Secondly, you still haven't answered that according to al-qur'aan how will you determine the upper limit for the force used ? The Mullah killing a zaani by using his full force in flogging will be justified by your theory of "let compassion not move you" referring to force of flogging; it will not be a misuse of the law then. He can justify it by saying that if he used less than full force that would be "letting compassion move him", and according to your theory that will be perfectly justified and will fall within the limits of the law.
I said the number is important (plese asee last post), but the command is to LASH not back massage.
Does the Quraan say Mullah should do the flogging ?
No. The Quraan expects the punishment to be carried out by people who ?believe in Allah and the last day?. Such a person/people will be compassionate to another human being and therefore he can not have hatred towards the punished. Caning is for inflicting pain and not for killing, maiming or cutting people up.
For the sake of argument even in your public humiliation thesis there is pain involved for the punished due to the public humiliation and it will not be same for each and every person. For some it may not matter at all and for some it will cause more psychological damage than physical. Do we analyze that as well? How about the length, breadth and the make of the cane; wood or something else. The witnesses; how many, male or female, young or old , close watching or at a distance ? Which part of the body to cane? Palm or back or anywhere else. Morning or evening. Indoors or outdoors ?
Have you decided what kind of cow its going to be?
Tanveer Thirdly, the verse clearly says that "let not compassion move you IN THE SYSTEM PRESCRIBED BY GOD". The question is WHAT IS THE SYSTEM PRESCRIBED BY GOD ? The answer according to 242 is 100 LASHES WITH PUBLIC WITNESSING (with no mention of severity). So "let not compassion move you" will apply only to the number of lashes and the public witnessing and not the severity, because the severity is not mentioned. The God does not run out of words; He could have easily said "do not be too mild, nor too forceful", but He makes no mention of the severity of force. The emphasis, therefore, is clearly on the public shaming and humiliation aspect of flogging, which I have already shown that it can be an "azaab" and an effective worldly deterrent.
How come you see the ?100? and the ?green? and not see the TREES in ?100 trees which are green?.
The subject matter is LASHES.
The punishment is lashes. The number being 100 can not be reduced. But its 100 LASHES. Lashing means inflicting pain and not killing or maiming or cutting people up for which there are other words in the quraan. We can not exceed the limit if we ?believe in Allah and the last day?
Tanveer ?100 LASHES WITH PUBLIC WITNESSING?
There is no such sentence, read the verse again.
242 Yusuf Ali The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication flog each of them with a hundred stripes let not compassion move you in their case in a matter prescribed by Allah if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment
Can you see it says ?flog each 100 times?.
The witnessing comes, much later in the verse. It is not in the same sentence as you like to project and the context doesnt provide that either.
The witnessing may be is to serve as a warning to others who sees and hears the punishment.
They were told to witness the azaab and not be the azaab it self. When you are invited to come and see the game that does not mean you are asked to come and play. You are just going to be part of the audience.
The verse says the believers should witness "THEIR AZAAB? meaning the azaab of the 2 people punished. It doesn?t say the 2 people being punished should see the believers which will be public humiliation. There is no public humiliation mentioned in the verse. Even if the believers are behind a one way glass and witnesses the proceedings still the commands in the verse are not broken.
-
-
Peace bro Warner,
I can see that you have consistently avoided answering one of the questions that I have been asking you.
According to your theory, "let not compassion move you" means the punishment is not mild. According to this conjecture then, WHAT IS THE UPPER LIMIT OF FORCE OF FLOGGING ?
The person legally appointed to do the flogging, flogging with full force and killing the zaani in the process, claiming that he will not let compassion move him, FALLS WITHIN YOUR CONJECTURAL INTERPRETATION OF THE VERSE.
No. The Quraan expects the punishment to be carried out by people who ?believe in Allah and the last day?. Such a person/people will be compassionate to another human being and therefore he can not have hatred towards the punished. Caning is for inflicting pain and not for killing, maiming or cutting people up.
The part in bold of your quote CLEARLY CONTRADICTS the "do not let compassion move you" part of 242, IF THAT PHRASE IS CONJECTURALLY INTERPRETED TO BE REFERRING TO FORCE OF LASHING.
Someone being lashed with mild force also falls within the limits of "lash them", and because severity is not mentioned, "let compassion not move you" cannot be referring to force of lashes, as you yourself admitted in your above quote where you said "Such a person/people will be compassionate to another human being" referring to the force of lashing.
You contradict yourself when on one hand you say that "let not compassion move you" means not mild, and then on the other hand you say that such a person will be compassionate to another human being and not lash him with full force. Your conjecture of "let compassion not move you" referring to not mild force LEAVES THE DOOR WIDE OPEN FOR THE UPPER LIMIT OF THE FORCE.
The punishment is lashes. The number being 100 can not be reduced. But its 100 LASHES. Lashing means inflicting pain and not killing or maiming or cutting people up for which there are other words in the quraan. We can not exceed the limit if we ?believe in Allah and the last day?
Again, what is the upper limit of force of lashing per al-qur'aan ? Again, the Mullah flogging a zaani with full force thereby killing him in the process or cutting him up or damaging his spine and kidneys, because he does not want compassion to move him, WILL FALL WITHIN THE LIMITS ACCORDING TO YOUR CONJECTURAL INTERPRETATION.
Someone being lashed with mild force also falls within the limits of "lash them", and because severity is not mentioned, "let compassion not move you" cannot be referring to force of lashes. The words used are "faijlidoo" and "jaldatin" which according to Lane's Lexicon mean "beating the skin", and spanking someone with even bare hands falls within that definition. A better translation would be "beat their skin with 100 skin beatings".
"Lash them with 100 lashes" does not mention the severity; did The God forget to mention severity ? Therefore "let compassion not move you" cannot refer to severity, but only to the number of lashes.
The verse says the believers should witness "THEIR AZAAB? meaning the azaab of the 2 people punished. It doesn?t say the 2 people being punished should see the believers which will be public humiliation. There is no public humiliation mentioned in the verse. Even if the believers are behind a one way glass and witnesses the proceedings still the commands in the verse are not broken.
Witnessing can only be true witnessing if the view is clearly unobstructed, and the witnesses are in the vicinity of the flogging. Thus the witnessing is clearly public humiliation. Otherwise with latest technology, people can be made to think they are standing behind a one way mirror, whereas they could actually be watching something on a tv screen with special effects changing what is actually going on, and thus not be a true witnessing.
Because it is God's law that the flogging has to be publicly witnessed, even if the person being flogged cannot see the public, that person will still know that the flogging is being witnessed by others because it is God's law, and thus it will be public humiliation.