Death penalty in Koran?
-
claurianta wrote...
Could you perhaps guide me to a verse that says that persecution is worse than murder?2217 They ask you about the restricted month "Is there fighting in it?" Say "Much fighting is in it, and to repel from the path of God and to disbelieve in Him, and at the Restricted Temple, to drive its inhabitants out is far greater with God, and persecution is worse than being killed." And they still will fight you until they turn you back from your system if they are able. And whoever of you turns back from his system, and he dies while disbelieving, then these have nullified their work in this life and the next; these are the people of the Fire, in it they will abide eternally!
claurianta wrote...
because it is highly irrational to find a woman to condemn to death when a man kills a womani cannot quite get 2178, what is meant by free for free and slave for slave and woman for woman. does that mean even if a 'free' kills a 'slave', then a 'slave' has to be killed? or if a 'slave' kills a 'free', a 'free' has to be killed? and woman for woman? yes
as u point out that the utility of an eye or any other part to its owner is something which v cannot determine, would it be unfair to suppose in the absence of any certain knowledge that they are equally valuable to any 2 persons?
i really think i am going to keep wondering about 2 178!
I think for one that 2178 is there as a sort of restriction. Consider 2 or 3 people going out and killing someone together. Is it correct to then take the life of all the perpetrators? I think that 2178 would apply in such a case, to say that only one of the perpetrators can be executed. So basically if you can't find the person who is most responsible, or if they are all equally responsible, you use the 2178 principle if possible (say two men and a woman kill a woman, then the max punishment would be the life of the woman - but do realize that as this is the maximum collective punishment, you would have to let the other two go, so indeed it would be better to ask them all to serve a lesser punishment, but this question is in the hands of the heirs, within limits of 16126). If 2178 cannot be used (say three men kill a woman), then we have recourse to the traditional a life for a life principle (but again the one life is the maximum collective punishment, so you would have to let the others go - again better to demand lesser punishment that can be distributed to all the perpetrators). So I think 2178 is a guiding principle for collective punishment when a group of perpetrators is equally guilty.
As for 2217, having now looked at it I think this persecution is very similar in meaning to the "corruption in the land" (and refers to forcefully taking people away from Islam rather than physical persecution) that is used elsewhere in the Koran, and for which the maximum punishment of death is given in 533. Perhaps it would be fair to say that of those guilty of turning Muslims away from Islam, you can take their lives in equal numbers to the Muslims they have turned away from Islam. So say it is proven that they have FORCEFULLY (2217)turned away 5 men and 6 women away from Islam - I would say that then you can execute 11 of those found guilty, 5 men and 6 women if there are such numbers. If enough men or women cannot be found, then you can again apply the general a life for a life principle, so that 11 are executed, whether men or women.
Do remember of course that remorse would affect these equations, and I do not think you can take the life of any of those that are remorseful.
And do remember that these are maximum punishments, so it is up to the individual or the community to decide if it truly is right to demand the life of the perpetrator despite the fact that s/he is not being remorseful. The heart should guide this decision, and remember that it is always better to remit part or all of a punishment if it at all seems appropriate. You are obliged to use your heart and mind to demand the most just punishment - that is incumbent on the victim(s), and it is only the job of the court to make sure that the alleged crime occurred, and that the victim(s) are not demanding more than the maximum punishment. Therefore one must learn to control one's emotions in order to be able to be just in demanding punishment.
-
#coming back to ur criteria that intention of murder, actual murder and no remorse be the pre-conditions to death penalty, what if a, b and c have murdered d
a is the 'most responsible' for murder but is 'remorseful',
b abetted the murder but did not share the intention of murder and is also remorseful,
c did not take any (active) part in murder, but had the intentions (to murder) and is not 'remorseful' as to what happened,
do then all 3 of them get away with the murder?if n number of people take part in a murder, i see no reason why only 1 of them should be punished. the very fact that each of them shared the intention of murder makes each of them guilty enough, unless any of them had a change of heart and tried to oppose the murder but was overpowered, and in the very least was no longer a willing accomplice. what do u propose be done with the remaining (n-1) people. i definitely would see all of them put to death, unless any of them be opposing the murder.
again, why would it be that in absence of sufficient proof as to which of them was most responsible, a person nearest to the victim in status (read 'free' or 'slave') should be chosen to be put to death. it may very well be that the 'slave' may have played a lesser role than others. then because the person killed was a 'slave', the 'slave' being put to death does not seem particluarly just to me.
further, if the person killed is 'a' type and there are more than 1 'a' type in the group of criminals, should lots be drawn to pull out 1 to be put to death?
i thought quran does not distinguish between souls save for piety; and 'free for free' and 'slave for slave' is something which is going to keep me thinking for a long time. i really was going around under the impression that quran did away with the evils of slavery. cry
-
thegod,
Here are a few replies
No, they don't "get away with murder" but rather none of them would be sentenced to death... I would imagine they would have to pay blood money or there would be some other punishment - I don't know exactly yet. Even someone who kills accidentally and is remorseful has to pay bloodmoney (492) so I'm sure there is a way to find a proportional punishment that doesn't involve killing someone.
I totally agree with you, and hence I do think that 2178 really only applies to something like genocide or other types of mass murder and is not very well suited for individual cases. I think that when more than one person is involved in killing one person, then the punishments should still be stiff, but not equal to death.
Again I think this only applies to cases of mass murder and genocide. God is giving us a maximum limit... that is to say that it is never just to kill more of the perpetrators than have been unjustly killed by them.
As for slavery, the Koran doesn't directly abolish it... however I think it is quite clear that one cannot acquire new slaves, and there are many instances for which slaves must be freed... so basically it created a system whereby eventually all slaves would be freed, and therefore slavery would be abolished, as it now has. I do wonder though if there is a mistranlation with "slave" - perhaps it means a captive? As in a prisoner who is serving his sentence?
One thing I must note is that you have to look at the judicial system set up in the Koran, and not try to compare it to today's judicial system. In the Koran, it is the victim's (or his heirs' in case of murder) right to exact punishment. Therefore, the courts have two responisbilities
- to establish the fact of the case that have been proven
- to make sure that the punishment the victim wants to exact exceeds neither the proportionality nor the equality principle (a life for a life, an eye for an eye is in some cases a limit on the proportionality principle, and in some cases the proportionality principle is a limit on a life for a life, an eye for an eye - and hence the lesser of the two should be applied - they are both there to protect the perpetrator from unjust punishment).
It is thus incumbent on the victim to think rationally for himself how his prejudice can be appropriately reparated, and in a sense he is also forced to place himself in the shoes of the perpetrator and think how he would feel in the same situation. The victim therefore is the judge of the destiny of the perpetrator (within the limits of proportionality and equality), and bears the responsibility of judging appropriately. The court should only intervene in the punishment phase if the punishment demanded by the victim exceeds the legal limits - hence it is not for the court to suggest a punishment, but rather to control that it is within the limits of BOTH proportionality and equality.
-
for the time being i dont think i have anything concrete to offer, but as and when i come up with something to oppose u, i will. p (hope u dont mind because its always refreshing to talk to someone who can think for own's self)
again, its great talking to you -)
-
Peace claurianta and all. interesting discussions! I would just make a comment. Surely it is not punishable with death or execution if a person turned another away from 'islam'? Bearing in mind that a person could turn away from the 'sunni' way of thinking(for example) and follow the methodology of shiah or 'quran only'. Would this be considered as turning away from islam? We have to be very careful in defining people as muslim or non-muslim.(peoples lives' and their quality of treatment by others can be put at risk with these definitions). Just look at the treatment of some shiahs by some sunnis. Do we want more death and suffering because of religious intolerance and division? (look at iraq,afghanistan,karbala,the crusades etc. etc..) I would like to Increase the peace.(isnt that what islam is for?)
Peace all. -
Peace claurianta and all. interesting discussions! I would just make a comment. Surely it is not punishable with death or execution if a person turned another away from 'islam'? Bearing in mind that a person could turn away from the 'sunni' way of thinking(for example) and follow the methodology of shiah or 'quran only'. Would this be considered as turning away from islam? We have to be very careful in defining people as muslim or non-muslim.(peoples lives' and their quality of treatment by others can be put at risk with these definitions). Just look at the treatment of some shiahs by some sunnis. Do we want more death and suffering because of religious intolerance and division? (look at iraq,afghanistan,karbala,the crusades etc. etc..) I would like to Increase the peace.(isnt that what islam is for?)
Peace all.Ah... you see, that's why I qualified the conversion as FORCED conversion. I think it is a great crime to use force to convert, whether it be to Islam or from Islam or whatever. So we are not talking here of using reason and other peaceful methods for converting people, but rather of religious war, trying to get people to disbelieve through the force of arms, terror, or other such methodology. I fully believe in the freedom of religion, and the right to choose what to believe in. That is a God given right. And hence it is a grave right to take that right away from someone. So truth be told, I consider karbala and the crusades clear cases of "corruption of the land", because they clearly did not respect the freedom of religion.
I will go further by saying that simply converting away from Islam is not a worldly crime, and therefore has no worldly punishment - only God can determine whether the conversion has actually taken place, and what the appropriate punishment is, so we should let God take care of crimes committed against him, and we humans will take care of crimes committed against us (within Koranic limits). -
Peace claurianta. Sorry! ops I misunderstood what you said.Forced conversion is indeed different. I respect and agree with a lot of your last post. Thanks for the clarification.
Peace. -
perhaps enquirer did not regard the word 'forcibly', or perhaps meant conversion from 'shia islam' to 'sunni islam' or vice verse, even if using force. i mean in that case even though force is used, u still convert from 1 islam to another islam! i know how it sounds! lolz!
-
Peace thegod,thats fine,no problem.
Peace. -
Peace claurianta. Sorry! ops I misunderstood what you said.Forced conversion is indeed different. I respect and agree with a lot of your last post. Thanks for the clarification. )
Peace.Peace enquirer. No problem. We are all here to try to understand, and I perhaps I didn't explain it well enough the first time. It is better to ask a question than to live in ignorance )