Its reasonable to punish those who surrendered?
-
4240 The recompense for a crime shall be its equivalence, but whoever forgives and makes right, then his reward is upon God. He does not like the wrongdoers. (edip yuksel)
4240 But requiting evil may, too, become an evil, hence, whoever par?dons and makes peace, his reward rests with God - for, verily, He does not love evildoers. (M . asad)
Does that mean that its allowable to punish the wrongdoers ,after they have surrendered ?
Or ,based on M asadi's translation, that an act of requital is evil therefore its not allowable as god hates the evildoers? -
Salam dakidz, johnny_k. I second johnny_k's reply and add this refinement.
When Allah says an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, remember it is better to forgive. Allah is defining the hudood/limits. In other words the maximum penalty can be an eye and the minimum penalty is forgiveness, anything between these two hudood/limits is permitted.
What this does is allow forgiveness, as Allah forgives, and prevents abuses, by halting any excessive retribution. One cannot sentence a person to death if an eye has been taken out. Perfect equity.
Allah is most just.
-
Salaam dotty. The term is equity, not equivalence. Equivalence is a chemical term, when the chemical valencies, the concentrations are equal. Equity is a legal term, equity means equal and impartial justice between two persons.
Islamic law has a different method of arriving at equity. In the case you describe, if a deaf man removes the ear of a hearing man, since the previously hearing man has suffered a financial as well as physical loss, it is possible to compensate him through a computation of the damages that he suffers as a result.
You might believe this describes a personal injury lawsuit, however it is different.
In the Islamic system the right to retribution does not belong to the state, it belongs to the individual. The individuals family may maintan an independant action, in the case of murder, and demand the life of the murderer, OR, maintain a personal injury case and receive a monetary judgment. They cannot get both.
The western system creates two actions. A state maintained murder case, and a personal injury case. The criminal is can be made to pay twice, once with his life, and a second time from his estate, this is inequitable, you get one or the other not both. Worse still the criminal court finds the accused not guilty, and the civil court find them liable. How can a not guilty person be liable, it defies reason.
For a non party to the action to arbitrarily demand forgiveness of the injured person and his near relatives is unjust. The injured person has a family who may depend on them for maintenance and support. Forgiveness in that instance may result in minor children starving due to the wrong of another.
Allah is the best of those who judge.
-
Salaam Al Araf,
Equity = Something that is fair and just.
Equilvalent = Equal in value.Sorry to say, but I don't see much of a difference.
But, if we go with equity (fair and just)... then who decides what is fair and just?
The government, the victim, the victim's family?You mentioned that Islamic law has a different method of arriving at equity. Much appreciated if you show me this from the Quran.
Thank you in advance.
Peace,
dotty