A CHECK AND BALANCE: PURNISHMENT NOT EXCEED THE CRIME
-
Peace brother Wakas
peace z,
You say "fornication", I say "fornication as proven by 4 witnesses".
Questions 1 and 2 are not identical
- fornication = 100 lashes
- fornication as proven by 4 witnesses = 100 lashes
If you feel they are the same, then that is up to you.
Accepted, fornication as proven by 4 witnesses= 100 lashes
I ask, what is the basis of valuation,what is the yard stick of measurement, what is our prove?
Think about it.
ZUBAIRUS
-
peace zubairus,
yardstick is of course AQ for those following it, and our logic/reason/heart/etc.
Two points in brief
I have often thought it would be an interesting study to list the punishments/expiations in AQ, in order from most severe to least severe, as this would give us an idea of what the author of AQ regards as bigger crimes, lesser crimes etc. As far as I'm aware, such a study has not been done.
I briefly commented on the lashes punishment in this thread, which you may find interesting
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597946.0NB AQ = al quran
-
-
peace zubairus,
Well, in addition to what I have said...
In terms of concluding some sort of universally agreed upon concrete equivalence, it is impossible, and that is probably why AQ gives us the scale, and we have been given our reason/heart/mind, to guide us.
-
Pece brother wakas,
In a very simple term, it is not possible we quantify an act of fornication witnessed by 4 to equate it with 100 lashes. Right?In the same light we can not quantify the act of stealing, the act of amputation to equate them, thereby asserting that one is greater than the other.
And just like Allah did not mention amputation in the case of yusuf, he did mention cutting from his resource as the punishment.
Furthermore, is there not the possibility that the specific sharrier at the time of yusuf is not necessary the sharier at this time?
If my line of thinking is valid, you may have to review your application of the verse - 16126.
THINK ABOUT IT.
Peace.
ZUBAIRUS
peace zubairus,
Well, in addition to what I have said...
In terms of concluding some sort of universally agreed upon concrete equivalence, it is impossible, and that is probably why AQ gives us the scale, and we have been given our reason/heart/mind, to guide us.
-
peace zubairus,
I think of it like this, the concept or guideline is equivalence. We must be mindful of this when serving justice.
In application, it is perhaps impossible to be equivalent in terms of crime/punishment/expiation, that is why AQ does not mean literally.
In such situations, I often find it helpful to consider the alternatives, and in this case, the literal application of equivalence leads to nonsense/injustice/illogical/improper conduct etc.
-
peace all,
I think of it like this, the concept or guideline is equivalence. We must be mindful of this when serving justice.
I would like to correct my above statement. I should have said "the concept or guideline is equivalence or less".
Apologies for the error.
