The Nerve Of It All!
Abu Eesa Niamatullah, The Message of Islam, August 22nd 2010
The great thing about finding the right place for Tarawīh prayers during Ramaḍān is the opportunity to deeply reflect upon verses of the Qur’ān that you might not hear every day, recited in a slightly more quicker fashion than normal which also adds that little bit more reality to the occasion too. Often, in the normal obligatory prayers, the Imām might recite so slowly – in fact too slowly with more focus being on Tajwīd etc – that one starts to enjoy more the voice and musical sound as opposed to reflect instead about what is actually being said, and indeed finds it more difficult to remember the previous verse so as to give context and feeling to the current verse being recited.
It was quite ironic that my Tarawīh reflection tonight as the verses were being recited (I’m currently at a place which is doing only half a juz’ a day, and so we’ve only just got to Ṣūrat’l-Mā’idah!) was none other than the verse of the moment:
“We prescribed for them therein: A life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear and a tooth for a tooth; and for wounds, an equal retaliation. But, if one forgives it, then that will be expiation for him. Those who do not judge according to what God has revealed are doing grave wrong.” (al-Mā’idah, 45)
This story below of a Saudi judge trying to ensure that just the spinal cord is severed as part of a Qiṣāṣ (I prefer the translation “fair retribution”) case has unfortunately caused many Muslims to make ignorant and pathetic statements against their own religion, a fact made all the worse because it is only done in response to the sensitivities being offended of those who don’t accept any verses of the Qur’ān, let alone those verses which might be more gory in nature. Which begs the question: exactly how much more of the Qur’ān will such Muslims throw behind their backs as well?
BBC News: Saudi man ‘faces spine-op punishment’
Amnesty International has urged Saudi authorities to stop any attempt to medically paralyse a man as a judicial punishment.
A Saudi judge is reported to have asked hospitals if it is possible to cut the spinal cord of the man, found guilty of paralysing another man in a fight.
Amnesty said intentionally paralysing someone would constitute torture.
Under Islamic law in Saudi Arabia, retribution sentences can include eye-gouging and, for murder, beheading.
“We urge the Saudi Arabian authorities not to carry out such a punishment, which amounts to nothing less than torture,” said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, of Amnesty International.
“While those guilty of a crime should be held accountable, intentionally paralysing a man in this way would constitute torture and be a breach of its international human rights obligations.”
The UK-based human rights group quoted reports that a court in the north-western town of Tabuk had approached a number of hospitals enquiring about a spinal operation.
The man in question has already been sentenced to seven months’ imprisonment for the offence, which happened more than two years ago, Amnesty said.
The brother of the victim told the Associated Press news agency that the injuries had been caused in a fight involving a meat cleaver.
He said his brother, who was left paralysed and later lost a foot, had asked a judge in Tabuk to impose an equivalent punishment on his attacker under Islamic law.
Correspondents say the case highlights attempts by Saudi Arabia to balance religious traditions with a push to modernise the country.
The verses concerning Qiṣāṣ and the Hudūd (prescribed punishments) do confuse many people so let me just say briefly concerning Qiṣāṣ in particular that firstly, Allāh ‘azza wa jall never wishes at the first instance for people to punish and retaliate against each other as has been made manifestly clear by His statement, “But, if one forgives it, that will be an expiation for him” as well as His statement in Ṣūrat’l-Baqarah, “But if the culprit is pardoned by his aggrieved brother, this shall be adhered to fairly, and the culprit shall pay what is due in a good way. This is an alleviation from your Lord and an act of mercy” meaning that the original criminal has been let off and you as the injured party will have your sins erased for such a noble act.
This is what the original status quo is i.e. to pardon the assailant. And this is no doubt whatsoever what the Judge will have begged the claimant’s family to do (I know some Sharī‘ah Court Judges personally, have seen Qadhā’ in action, and this is exactly what happens). And folks, I really do mean beg – with everything possible exhorting to forgiveness and mercy found in the Qur’ān and Sunnah. To witness this happening in a court can actually be quite an emotionally overwhelming experience.
This is of course the Sunnah of the Prophet (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) as narrated by Anas b. Mālik (radhy Allāhu ‘anhu) who said, “Never was a case of retaliation ever raised to the Prophet except that he would order the claimants to pardon (the assailant).” (Abū Dāwūd)
And likewise this was the Sunnah of the Companions afterwards as well – despite the fact that many of the narrations that describe the reward for the one who pardons in such a manner are actually considered to be dha‘īf (weak) – yet the consensus of the Muslim nation is upon the fact that one should try and encourage the claimant to forgive and pardon his assailant at the very least from having to take retribution against him by causing a similar injury. This is generally supported by a number of encouragements from the Qur’ān and Sunnah, for example as Allāh ‘azza wa jall says in Ṣūrat Āle-‘Imrān (v. 134), “Hurry towards your Lord’s forgiveness and a Garden as wide as the heavens and earth prepared for the righteous; those who give, both in prosperity and adversity, who restrain their anger and pardon people. God loves those who do good.”
Similarly the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “Wealth is not diminished by giving in charity, the one who pardons is not increased except in honour, and one doesn’t humble himself in front of Allāh except that Allāh will raise him.” (Muslim)
It should be made clear here that there is discussion amongst the Fuqahā’ that if such a blow was delivered by the injured party against the original assailant (such as with a meat cleaver!) and of course it is near-impossible to recreate the exact same spinal injury inflicted by the same kind of blow, then Qiṣāṣ is not an option anymore and blood money is insisted upon instead. In fact it would be fair to say that the majority of the scholars hold that if someone suffers any internal injury in an attack, the judge cannot offer Qiṣāṣ to the claimant’s family because of the uncertainty and risk involved of further and greater injury than that incurred in the first place.
I would contend that it is rather unfortunate not to say this judge in question actually receive more praise for taking his job so seriously. It would have been far easier for him to just say, “This is a seriously complicated internal injury in which there’s no way of having exact fair retribution for so I rule for blood money!”
Said statement would have been the norm from the scholars a thousand years ago but what the judge is investigating is whether our current medical advancements allow for an exact replication of the injury in question, which is in essence the exact letter of the law – a law which is to be found still today in the Old Testament and has been maintained for the Muslims to follow until the Final Day. And what must be remembered is that the judge has gone to all this effort solely in pursuit of justice for the injured party for it is his right to forgo blood money and choose the exact same horrific injury that has ruined his life upon the assailant despite the fact that to pardon would be better.
In summary then: the judge is quite right Islamically to explore the possibility of establishing the desire of the claimant for the letter of the law if the claimant has rejected the spirit of the law. And we likewise should respect that.
And it’s for that final reason that I felt compelled to write this piece: respect. As Muslims we should respect our scholars more than what some detractors and antagonists would like us to do. It is a very serious issue to question people’s intentions without the full facts or to do so from a position of ignorance of Islamic Law.
Yet it is altogether far worse to disrespect and question the authenticity and finality of God’s word in His final Book gifted to mankind to lift them from their darkness into the light of guidance. And all because of what? Because one is being made to feel uncomfortable about the divine nature of one’s faith due to the dissatisfaction of those who couldn’t care a single jot about faith in the first place. That truly is shameful and a measly price and reason to sell one’s religion for!
Let me in closing gently remind my brothers and sisters of what Allāh jalla wa ‘alā told the Jewish nation in the verse preceding our Qiṣāṣ verse that we’re looking at, which could very well be a wake-up call to us as well:
“So do not fear the people but fear Me, and do not exchange My verses for a small price. And whoever does not judge by what Allāh has revealed – then it is those who are the disbelievers.” (al-Mā’idah, 44)
August 23, 2010 at 12:22 am
Assalamu’Alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuhu, Thank you dear Shaikh for highlighting this very Important issue … Deeply obliged …
Your brother in faith
Abu Layth
Scotland..
August 24, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Wa ‘alaykum salam wr wb!
Nice to hear from you Abu Layth wa jazakallahu khayr- my salams to all the team at al-Furqan.
AE
August 23, 2010 at 5:15 am
barakAllah fiikum. I wonder if it worth also responding to the question of why a more or less obscure case gets global media attention. I am not attempting to downplay the interesting commentary you’ve highlighted nor the confusion it results in. I suppose it is a delicate balance between correcting mistakes and preventing misguidance with having to be on the defensive when all corners are throwing in their two-cents.
August 23, 2010 at 1:24 pm
It’s very interesting how the facts of the case have been missed out in this piece.
E.g. was the ‘defendant’ in this case really so aggressive, or was it out of self-defence he acted, and the resulting injury was an unfortunate part of that?
Did the victim in question actually suffer the paralysis from the meat cleaver being wielded by said defendant, or did he fall onto it, or fall onto the floor, or hit himself in some other way? How sure can you be that it was the meat cleaver which caused the injuries? And if it was the meat cleaver, how can you be sure it was the meat cleaver struck by the hand of the defendant, which caused the paralysis?
How many witnesses were there? Did they actually see the incident? Is this case, which has taken place in Saudi – yes, that’s the same Saudi which rules that when a Saudi Arab hits a non-Arab’s car, the non-Arab has to pay up – actually conducted fairly, beyond all reasonable doubt?
Can we say with a 99% certainty (for it can never be 100% unless we witnessed it ourselves) – that this actually happened?
And how to take his period of imprisonment into account? Surely, he shouldn’t be punished twice. And was it that he was only actually sentenced for a short period of time – meaning that the facts are less clear cut then this judge would have us believe?
By the way, these are just important questions that have to be asked before any kind of punishment, especially punishments of this nature, are carried out. Saudi Arabia, unfortunately, has major, MAJOR problems in its justice system – a lot based on race and ethnicity; the superiority of some over others (in the eyes of the State); some based on economic situations – where the poor rarely get a fair deal.
In the context of such inherent problems within a nation which practices bigotry as the norm in many of its official arenas, such punishments, cases, facts and judgments, should be looked at very, very, very, very, very, very closely (as they should in any country), before praise is afforded to anyone.
August 23, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Jazakallah khayr for this beautiful article.
It is refreshing to see the fruits and practices of justice within the Islamic Shariah. Unfortunately we have all lived for so long without seeing the Shariah in action that we don’t appreciate nor can we counter the many accusations made against the shariah and its alleged ‘archaic’ system.
But, you ought to becareful in stereotyping certain evil practices that you hear or have seen about in Saudi. For example you state that the Saudi law rules that if a Saudi hits a non-arabs car then the non-arab has to pay is as far as I am concerned tantamount to a lie. I am not denying that this has happened, it does, certain unscrupulous individuals circumvent the law and take advantage because of connections or merely he can speak arabic more fluently than the other person. But, to say that is the norm and that is the law, well I think thats going too far. I have personally seen, been in the middle, had first hand accounts of a number of incidents in Saudi. Sometimes when a police officer comes to a scene of an accident, he sometimes advises the more practising person or certainly the more well-off person to forgive the other person if he sees that it will be extremely hard for the other person to pay for repparations. There is a huge emphasis placed in forgiveness and reward in the akhirah in these sort of incidents. Secondly, I know personally a case of an Egyptian caretaker, who was hit in a car accident by an off-duty SAUDI police officer. The Egyptian caretaker was not only poor, but he suffered two broken legs and a fractured skull. The SAUDI police officer was jailed and held until his family/tribe came and paid the qisas judged in this case.
Alhamdulillah it was nice to see the Shariah defended for once, but lets not exagerrate other things in order to seem balanced and fair.
Allahu Alam
August 23, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Just to point out – I did not say it was the norm. What I did emphasise is that this happens – and if we KNOW that this has happened in the RECENT past, then cases must be looked at carefully and thoroughly. Fighting against this point just shows ignorance and a disregard for Islamic principles, not the defence of them.
And how can you say it is a lie if, as you’ve mentioned, you are not denying that such incidents have happened? This is inconsistent. (Please read my post again – I did not Saudi law says…. I said Saudi rules…I meant in terms of judgment – hence why I was careful not to write, ‘law’.)
I did not decry the Saudi justice system in its entirety. I merely pointed out some flaws. If you want more, fully referenced, by all means, I will be more than happy to provide – including the cases of young, poor, foreign women sitting on death row who cannot even speak Arabic, let alone afford decent defence lawyers.
Problems are rife in many justice systems. Even in the UK, shocking miscarriages of justice have occurred. The difference is, when penalties are limited to imprisonment, rectifying these wrongs – though impossible in their entirety – are much simpler. Giving back someone the ability to walk after wrongly paralysing them, is not. One would ask in such scenario, as the judge had not done his job properly in the first place, and had not established the facts correctly, then could he be paralysed too? And the prosecutor who withheld information? And the defence lawyer who was inept? For all contributed to this man’s wrongful paralysis….
If we want to defend the truth of the Shari’ah – let’s make sure we ask for truth to be paramount – for trials to be far – for facts to be established – for prescribed punishments to be used – for invented barbarities to be overturned (such as certain punishments which are used but which have not been prescribed in Allah’s Book) – for forgiveness to be reflected upon.
And let’s not defend certain regimes based on the fact that they call themselves, “Islamic” and claim that all criticism of them are exaggerated due to an over-sensitivity which we have adopted from our obsession with the “Islam” versus “the West” discourse.
August 23, 2010 at 7:26 pm
Masha’Allah, One of the better articles I have read. Barrakalalh feek.
And for the fellow hmm asking all those questions, that’s what the judge does in the case to make his ruling! With that being said what is your evidence:
Did the victim in question (You in this case) actually suffer [oppression from the KSA Justice system] being wielded by said defendant, or did [you] fall onto it, or fall onto the floor, or [oppress yourself] in some other way? How sure can you be that it was the [KSA justice system] which caused the [oppression]? And if it was the [KSA justice system], how can you be sure it was the [justice system] [issued by the judge], which caused the oppression?
How many witnesses were there? Did they actually see the [oppression]? Is this case, which has taken place in Saudi – yes, that’s the same Saudi which rules that when [a sharia declared thief steals his hand is cut, when a sharia declared fornicator is caught he is caned,and other forms of Sharia justice other nations are just afraid to implement, the same KSA that maintains the two holy sites of Makkah and Madina and has Islamic Universities setup just for the purpose of educating the public about Islam] – actually conducted fairly, beyond all reasonable doubt?
Can we say with a 99% certainty (for it can never be 100% unless we witnessed it ourselves) – that this actually happened?
By the way, these are just important questions that have to be asked before any kind of [statement/judgment], especially [statement/judgment] of this nature, are [made]. Saudi Arabia, fortunately, has major, MAJOR [coherence] in its justice system [with that of sharia law]– a lot based on [the Quraan and Sunnah]; – where the poor get a fair deal.
The other side of the coin.
August 23, 2010 at 11:14 pm
Please not this man HAS served his prison sentence.
This means the judge in question is a sentencing judge, not a judge of facts.
But of course, men are infallible – especially if scholars say they are (!)
August 23, 2010 at 10:08 pm
I just wonder how difficult it would be for the mother to forgive those animals who so brutally beat two of her sons to death in broad daylight in sialkot (Pakistan). May Allah swt grant the brothers jannah and give patience to their families.
August 23, 2010 at 10:14 pm
A quick question please why is salatul Tarawīh emphasised over Tahajjud in Ramaḍān; congregational rather than solitary, public rather than private, early rather than late, listening rather than reciting. Don’t get me wrong I would rather stand there and get rewards whilst someone else is doing the hard work. Just something you said in an earlier post about recharging the batteries.
August 24, 2010 at 3:27 am
Jazaak Allah Khayran for the excellent points. The hudud punishments may seem brutal at first, but as Allah says, there’s *Life* in Qisas.
August 24, 2010 at 12:46 pm
dont you just hate those people who post under anonymous name…
@hmm – I think your forgetting that this is a COURT OF LAW not your aunties kitchen, they have processes and system that are in place to ensure that one who is found guilty is actually guilty, (mis-carriages of justice happen in every system of law). If that is the judgement of a qualified Judge then it should be respected, that person commited an offence in that land which carries a known punishment.
In this case it is a Divine law which the Judge has acted according to. If you have an issue with it, then on the Day of Judgement you can stand in front of Allah and argue over His justice.
August 24, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Nasar, don’t be so disrespectful. I didn’t disregard the judgment – I said if such a punishment is meted out the judgment should be looked upon, and looked upon again. People aren’t infallible. And COURTS OF LAW, as you like to call them, are not infallible. Actually, more injustices that you can possibly believe happen in COURTS OF LAW and no legal system is immune, especially the saudi LAW COURTS.
I understand the problem – questioning a Muslim nation. But in reality, these are the ones we should be looking at the most, and questioning the most, in order for us to reach the closest to perfection that we are able too (which, due to the nature of human beings, isn’t very far, but is much further than we are at now).
Btw, I love how orthodox muslims always try and guilt trip anyone who asks questions – then use God as a weapon and threat. Please note, I didn’t contradict the Qur’an, or complain about what is written within it, or anything of that nature. I questioned men in a nation who has done quite dastardly deeds in its most recent history, both domestically – including in their COURTS OF LAW, and internationally. I am not questioning God – I don’t need too – everything He has Said is perfect. Don’t confuse men with God – it is a very bad, and totally ignorant thing to do, on so many planes.
Btw, I haven’t assumed a sporadic identity. I always post as, ‘hmm’. I am anonymous not so I can question without reproach, but because it’s highly foolish to post your private details – including your name – on public forums such as this. The internet is full of weirdos – and personal security is a very important thing.
P.s. – How do I know your name is ‘Nasar’? And how are you not anonymised with the millions of Nasars there are in the world?! And no link to other information…
I hope you understand the point made. My anonymity is more blatant, but yours still exists.
August 24, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Assalamu ‘alaykum brother/sister
There’s no doubt that there are a lot of abuses of the system in the Muslim world, although I don’t think that KSA is any worse than anywhere else. It’s just because they are the most renowned for their attempt at Shari’ah, they are the ones most under the microscope and so the mistakes and bias etc etc are really magnified wallahu a’lam.
The details of this current case are not known to us and actually it wasn’t my concern to be honest because there are many of these diya cases over there – there very well might be mistakes from the Judge and the various parties involved, even the system itself, even the courts as you suggest! But the Judge is forgiven indeed rewarded for his mistakes as per the Sunnah and that’s why the Prophet (s) specified him by name, as opposed to saying Imam or Shaykh or Leader. He (s) said “the Judge.”
And as you know, we don’t look into the hearts of the Judge and the people, or at least that’s not my job and I didn’t want to get involved in the corruption and the mistakes I only commented because the West are just getting off over another Bogey Man Shari’ah Case from the Bastion of Oppression and Death in the Whole World – KSA. People in the West need to be educated, and Muslims jumping on the bandwagon need to be warned.
Finally, the fact that the assailant has been in prison doesn’t mean anything. It seems strange that you’re talking about that repeatedly because every system holds a guilty party until the court case has been completed and the ruling has ben established. Are you 100% sure that the Judge’s final ruling was imprisonment and nothing else?
This seems strange because the Hanabilah specifically follow the hadith of the Prophet (s) in not making a decision on the Qisas until the injury inflicted has either healed, or got worse, or become clear with respect to its nature. Thus, it will be quite normal for there to be a delay in the final ruling/judgement in such a specific and violent case, and therefore it follows that to be imprisoned as a criminal for that waiting time is also part and parcel of the system, not just Secular-based ones but with Shari’ah as well.
Wallahu a’lam.
PS: are you sure about your fear of the wierdos on the internet? We only ask for your name so that you feel personally responsible for what you say as per the Sunnah, we’re not wanting your address and bank details!
Although if you’re in the mood, the latter will always come in useful…
AE
August 25, 2010 at 1:54 am
lol, not in the mood at the moment to send bank details, Im afraid
Hmm – could be my initials? Maybe?
And btw I am personally responsible for what I say. There is no anonymity from God. He Knows who I am and so I can’t pretend I didn’t say what I’ve said.
In a public meeting, gathering etc, I would be more than happy to stand up and agree/disagree/air my views without hiding behind anything – as people think I am doing.
Seriously, I’m not. I actually am acutely aware of my privacy and security. It’s a legitimate concern.
August 24, 2010 at 7:14 pm
[...] brother Abu Eesa points out here (and here), the norm is for the judge to really beg the victim’s family to pardon the assailant or [...]
August 25, 2010 at 1:30 am
This article by shaykh Jallal Abualrub was quite interesting different topic but along the same lines. Inshallah the reader will find benefit in it.
August 25, 2010 at 1:30 am
http://muslimspoet.blogspot.com/2010/08/europe-removes-its-veil.html
August 30, 2010 at 10:27 am
Assalamualaikum wa Rahmatullah
While we’re on about anonymity, I don’t use my name because I don’t want Future Wife seeing my name on the Internets yet. Sad but true.