Laws in Islam

Tar.Aldarion

InFront wrote:

For these penal punshments (hudood) I'm pretty definite the individual concerned would have to be a Muslim. They would also have to be sane, know the gravity of their crime, commit it under no prior obligation upon them (e.g. not raped/ coerced) etc.

It is also possibly important to mention that a functional characteristic of the punishment is that it acts an atonement of the sin.

This is in response to a post asking what would happen if an adulterer happened to not be a muslim.
I have follow on questions(just wondering really), what if the person was a muslim but did not want to atone?
Or is it a case that it does not matter if they want to, others can make them atone by punishing them thusly? IE, their atonement comes from the stoning?
Also, A)
What if they renounced their faith?
or
Was a muslim that did not believe in stoning?
Do these people still get stoned?


Also, what happens to a male adulterer in your religion?
Thank you for indulging my curiosities.

jhegarty

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

What if they renounced their faith?

There was a very long running legal case in Malaysian about that.... (runs to google)


(edit) here we are:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7387C841-E8C8-455E-9AFC-5B0A132FF4CD.htm

I would give a summary , but its a long and complex case, so best to have a read on the link.... i used the aljazeera link so there won't be a suggestion of anti Islam bios....

(/edit)

Tar.Aldarion

If I remember correctly, they are not allowed to renounce their faith, is this a case where somebody tried too?
I don't understand how one is not allowed renounce their faith.

Hobbes

jhegarty wrote:

i used the aljazeera link so there won't be a suggestion of anti Islam bios....

(/edit)

It's "bias" and loose the chip.

Also while interesting link it doesn't answer Tars question, as she isn't being charged of any crime, only that she wants to convert. It also applies to Malaysian laws.

Just noticed Schuharts post.

Schuhart wrote:

Muslims are not allowed to renounce their faith and in some countries that apply Sharia a death penalty for that too. I doubt it would get you off the hook.

Schuhart

The question of conversion was discussed recently here. As I understand it (and as I think InFront already said either here or in Feedback) the stoning pretty much only relates to Muslims in countries where the Sharia applies. Hence, a Christian or Jew who commits adultery should not find themselves subject to this rule.

Of course, this does raise the possibility that if Muslim commits adultery with someone outside the faith, then the Muslim gets stoned and but his/her lover doesn't. I honestly don't know if that's the case or not, but that's where the logic should take us.

the_new_mr

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Also, what happens to a male adulterer in your religion?

Please read this post. Thanks.

Tar.Aldarion

Cool thanks, I have just heard conflicting opinions on that in particular.

Shabadu

the_new_mr wrote:

Please read this post. Thanks.

Looking over various news reports about stonings held in Iran, the vast majority of victims are female. 8 women and 1 man are currently awaiting death by stoning in Iran alone.

Is the pervasive and extreme sexism that exists in Iran a product of culture rather than religon? Are they using Islam as an unjustified excuse for brutality?

Is the sexism inherent* in Islam in any way responsible for the fact that in the vast majority of adulterous punishments the man is punished with a flogging while the woman is murdered? Is it because in some cases the woman is married whereas the man is single?

*Sexism is inherent in Islam, as it is in Christianity. I'm not saying that all Muslims are sexist, I'm not saying all Christians are sexist. I'm not trying to rock any boats.

hivizman

Shabadu wrote:

Looking over various news reports about stonings held in Iran, the vast majority of victims are female. 8 women and 1 man are currently awaiting death by stoning in Iran alone.

Is the pervasive and extreme sexism that exists in Iran a product of culture rather than religon? Are they using Islam as an unjustified excuse for brutality?

Is the sexism inherent* in Islam in any way responsible for the fact that in the vast majority of adulterous punishments the man is punished with a flogging while the woman is murdered? Is it because in some cases the woman is married whereas the man is single?

*Sexism is inherent in Islam, as it is in Christianity. I'm not saying that all Muslims are sexist, I'm not saying all Christians are sexist. I'm not trying to rock any boats.

I don't want to get into the general debate about sexism in Islam and whether it's cultural or inherent to the religion, but women are at a disadvantage in terms of the likelihood that they will be convicted of adultery under Sharia law (if I understand things correctly). Men are liable to be convicted if (1) there are four male witnesses to the actual adulterous sexual
act (there are other requirements as well), or (2) if they confess. Women are liable to be convicted if (1), there are four male witnesses, (2) if they confess, or (3) if an unexplained pregnancy occurs. Obviously, men can't become pregnant!

Now, in practice there are various "let outs" even in the case of a pregnancy. There's an interesting hadith reported by Bukhari:

Volume 8, Book 82, Number 830:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

A bedouin came to Allah's Apostle and said, "My wife has delivered a black child." The Prophet said to him, "Have you camels?" He replied, "Yes." The Prophet said, "What colour are they?" He replied, "They are red." The Prophet further asked, "Are any of them grey in colour?" He replied, "Yes." The Prophet asked him, "Whence did that greyness come?" He said, "I think it descended from the camel's ancestors." Then the Prophet said (to him), "Therefore, this child of yours has most probably inherited the colour from his ancestors."

I like the ambiguity of the final statement of Muhammad. I don't have the authority to hand, but I recall reading somewhere that there was a concept called "sleeping pregnancy" in parts of Africa with significant Islamic populations that allowed a woman to claim that her husband was the father of her child even several years after they became separated. But I wonder whether, in the modern world, with such concepts as DNA testing for paternity, it becomes harder for a woman to claim that an unexplained pregnancy is actually the responsibility of her husband.

A further factor that I think arises in some of these cases is that pressure is put on the woman to confess, while the man is better able to resist the pressure.

InFront

Shabadu wrote:

Looking over various news reports about stonings held in Iran, the vast majority of victims are female. 8 women and 1 man are currently awaiting death by stoning in Iran alone...
Sexism is inherent in Islam...

If you were advocating democracy in a debate with someone who was opposed to democracy, and they pointed out that Iran is a democracy, I have a feeling you would dismiss that slight on democracy in general out of hand by saying that it is not a true democracy in its actions, not representative of democracy, and is a democracy only in name.

Just as Iran is not representative of the values of democracy, nor is it representative of Shariah. There's no basis in Shariah for going harder on women who are found guilty of a crime. I think it is important to deifferentiate between what Iran says and what the Qur'an says, or differentiate between the example set by Ahmadinejad and the examples set by the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.

Shabadu

hivizman wrote:

I don't want to get into the general debate about sexism in Islam and whether it's cultural or inherent to the religion, but women are at a disadvantage in terms of the likelihood that they will be convicted of adultery under Sharia law (if I understand things correctly). Men are liable to be convicted if (1) there are four male witnesses to the actual adulterous sexual
act (there are other requirements as well), or (2) if they confess. Women are liable to be convicted if (1), there are four male witnesses, (2) if they confess, or (3) if an unexplained pregnancy occurs. Obviously, men can't become pregnant!

We can rule pregnancy out in a large number of cases. What baffles me is that surely the witnesses must have seen both parties (you can't really be adulterous on your own ). Why then are only the women sentenced if Iran is meant to be obeying Sharia law? It's completely hypocritical of them.

InFront wrote:

If you were advocating democracy in a debate with someone who was opposed to democracy, and they pointed out that Iran is a democracy, I have a feeling you would dismiss that slight on democracy in general out of hand by saying that it is not a true democracy in its actions, not representative of democracy, and is a democracy only in name.

Just as Iran is not representative of the values of democracy, nor is it representative of Shariah. There's no basis in Shariah for going harder on women who are found guilty of a crime. I think it is important to deifferentiate between what Iran does and what the Qur'an says or the example set by the ways of Muhammad, peace be upon him.

I heard a theory once that said some Islamic states have such an absence of human rights because it is a much younger religion than Christianity; so the unchristian atrocities that were committed in the name of Christ during the Middle Ages are now being replayed by some Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia, Sudan etc.

This seems a bit of a stretch to me, after all human rights atrocities are still being committed in the name of Christ in the U.S. Does the answer lie in just removing religion from politics completely? I lean strongly towards yes.

hivizman

Shabadu wrote:

We can rule pregnancy out in a large number of cases. What baffles me is that surely the witnesses must have seen both parties (you can't really be adulterous on your own ). Why then are only the women sentenced if Iran is meant to be obeying Sharia law? It's completely hypocritical of them.

I think that the usual explanation is that the woman is coerced into confessing while the man denies the charge, and because the four witnesses requirement is so onerous he gets off while the woman is convicted. I completely agree that it's hypocritical and sexist.

Shabadu wrote:

I heard a theory once that said some Islamic states have such an absence of human rights because it is a much younger religion than Christianity; so the unchristian atrocities that were committed in the name of Christ during the Middle Ages are now being replayed by some Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia, Sudan etc.

This seems a bit of a stretch to me, after all human rights atrocities are still being committed in the name of Christ in the U.S. Does the answer lie in just removing religion from politics completely? I lean strongly towards yes.

I've heard the same theory, but agree that it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. But can you really say that politics without religion means a society without atrocities?

Calls for the adoption of Sharia Law are often motivated by utopian beliefs that this will bring about some "golden age" such as that believed to have been in existence in Medina during the political control of Muhammad (though it is questionable how "golden" it was during those years, particularly if you were a member of one of the tribes that ended up being expelled or wiped out). These calls are too easily manipulated by authoritarian rulers to suppress opposition and oppress women. Is Sharia inherently oppressive, or is this just how it works in practice?

Shabadu

hivizman wrote:

Calls for the adoption of Sharia Law are often motivated by utopian beliefs that this will bring about some "golden age" such as that believed to have been in existence in Medina during the political control of Muhammad (though it is questionable how "golden" it was during those years, particularly if you were a member of one of the tribes that ended up being expelled or wiped out). These calls are too easily manipulated by authoritarian rulers to suppress opposition and oppress women. Is Sharia inherently oppressive, or is this just how it works in practice?

Some are obviously inherently oppressive, in much the same way that some Christian tenets are:

-No freedom allowed in sexuality/sexual choice.

-Obligatory dress code for women.

-Women are not allowed to marry without the express permission of a guardian.

-Men are allowed to be bigamists, women are not.

-Men are allowed unilateral divorce, women are not.

-No criticism/satire of Mohammed allowed.

-Capital punishment is condoned.

Hobbes

15 seconds in google:

Women have the same rights when it comes to divorce that a Man has under Islamic laws. A woman can file for divorce at any time as long as it meets the criteria (similar to Western Laws). The woman also keeps the children while the husband has to pay maintenance. Only instance I see where the husband would get the children if it was unsafe for them with the mother or she refused to raise them as Muslims. Instant divorces (triple Talaq) are actually not respecting the Quarn. The person is supposed to do it three times over a set period of time (eg. 3 months).

YMMV in more extremists countries.

Shabadu

Hobbes wrote:

Instant divorces (triple Talaq) are actually not respecting the Quarn. The person is supposed to do it three times over a set period of time (eg. 3 months).

As far as I can see, a woman generally does not have the right to divorce without the consent of the husband, but the husband can always instigate divorce.

Also, it's not 'the person' performing Talaq, it's the man. Perhaps that's open to interpretation, but that is my understanding of Sharia law. I'm fully open to correction if I'm wrong.

Hobbes

Shabadu wrote:

As far as I can see, a woman generally does not have the right to divorce without the consent of the husband, but the husband can always instigate divorce.

No both can. As I said certain countries don't obey this law (india for example).

Also, it's not 'the person' performing Talaq, it's the man.

From what I read around the woman can also do.

Asiaprod

Shabadu wrote:

As far as I can see, a woman generally does not have the right to divorce without the consent of the husband, but the husband can always instigate divorce.

Slightly off topic, but still relevant. This also applies to divorce in Japan. A man can walk into his local ward office and initiate a divorce proceedings, a woman cannot easily do this, and up to a short time ago, required the permission of her husband. That is, however, slowly changing.

Medin

Hobbes wrote:

No both can. As I said certain countries don't obey this law (india for example).



From what I read around the woman can also do.

She can't. Imaam can do this on her request. Women are more sensitive and if this was allowed explicite to them, we would be witnessing higher number of divorces...

And nevermind the law - they are married under the Law of Allah (swt), if they have a marriage cert or not, it doesn't really matter.

Wibbs

Medin wrote:

Women are more sensitive and if this was allowed explicite to them, we would be witnessing higher number of divorces...

Sensitive? Are you for real? You must not know many women. Obviously women's minds are so chock full of pink fluffy clouds that they can't make a decision of such importance like that. The poor dears. You do realise it's the 21st century? :rolleyes:

Medin

Wibbs wrote:

Sensitive? Are you for real? You must not know many women. Obviously women's minds are so chock full of pink fluffy clouds that they can't make a decision of such importance like that. The poor dears. You do realise it's the 21st century? :rolleyes:

No Wibbs, I donno much about females in general nor in particular, but I do know it's 15th century, not 21st!!!

Wibbs

Medin wrote:

No Wibbs, I donno much about females in general nor in particular,

It shows. Joking aside it would be good for you to find out in as much as your faith allows at least. Might open your eyes.

but I do know it's 15th century, not 21st!!!

OK I get ya, but 15th century eh? That sounds about right with that view of women.

Medin

Wibbs wrote:

It shows. Joking aside it would be good for you to find out in as much as your faith allows at least. Might open your eyes. OK I get ya, but 15th century eh? That sounds about right with that view of women.

No no, this is Islamic subforum, so your Gregorian doesn't count but الهجري calendar does.

Wibbs

Sadly in more ways than one it seems.

InFront

Medin wrote:

الهجري calendar does.

The Hijri Calendar.
Medin please translate these things so nobody thinks you're actually living in 1428:D.

I heard a theory once that said some Islamic states have such an absence of human rights because it is a much younger religion than Christianity; so the unchristian atrocities that were committed in the name of Christ during the Middle Ages are now being replayed by some Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia, Sudan etc.

That wouldn't make any sense. It's nothing to do with age or time, people just have to make choices between what their faith says and what the political and social paradigms set for a particular age. Methods of counting years may be different, but Islam exists in the same world as Christianity, in the same time - and is as old as Christianity, even if the Qur'an itself is not. The Bible and Torah orginated from the God that we believe in, there's nothing "newer" about Islam.

the_new_mr

shabadu wrote:

I heard a theory once that said some Islamic states have such an absence of human rights because it is a much younger religion than Christianity; so the unchristian atrocities that were committed in the name of Christ during the Middle Ages are now being replayed by some Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia, Sudan etc.

What ridiculous nonsense!! Like people are just following a set evolution of a religion and don't have minds to think for themselves? You're comparing the Crusades and the Spanish inquisition to the atrocities of Sudan? It's not good in Sudan... but comparing it to the Crusades?!! Come on!

And quickly, although the system for divorce for women is different, they do have the right to get divorced even without the permission of their husbands. This is called khola' in Arab countries.

Shabadu

I'd appreciate it if you didn't leave out this bit:

Shabadu wrote:

This seems a bit of a stretch to me, after all human rights atrocities are still being committed in the name of Christ in the U.S.

Also, the situation is 'not good' in Sudan? Wee bit of an understatement there, no?