I believe so. If one were to identify a single innovation which was designed to do maximum damage to the legal system of Islam then Rajm would take the cake hands down. The fact remains that Rajm (stoning) was never a part of Islam and that has not changed to this day. How do we know that because God told us so and he also repeatedly told us ''Nobody'' can change His Revealed words ever. In His own words this matter is settled beyond any doubt.
After this we are lead to believe that following reports, not even ascribed to the Prophet Pbuh, are indispensable to our salvation. Beside the absurd idea that the verse of Rajm was removed because a goat eat it, I am not making this up, but here is the real kicker, it was abrogated but the ruling remains, scratch your head all you want but you are not going to explain this one away. So now to the implications of the interpretation; when you find a pregnant lady irrespective of the fact if she is married or not, proceed to stone her to death, (actual practice) discard the four witness standard of Quran and assume that she is guilty, unless of course in the unlikely event that she finger the guy who raped her, then bring back the four witness condition in the name of justice (for the guy) even if it was never prescribed to be applied in the case of rape, hence for all practical purpose make it a point that no serious attempt will be made to catch the guy.
In the unlikely event that you do get to the point that both must be stoned, declare the rules of the game to all gathered, before the death watch turns into a participation death sport, inform the blood thirsty crowd that if anyone of the two manage to free themselves from their respective holes, their life will be spared, then proceed to bury the girl all the way up to her chest ensuring all hopes of escape are dashed but in an inexplicable and ultimate act of male chauvinism, not to mention total absence of fair play, bury the guy up to his waist only, yes that is right and let the games begin. What do you think of this interpretation :) No brownie points for guessing who will succeed in wiggle and dash. We have to look inwards and cleanse our own warped interpretations before throw the first stone at outsiders, so to speak.
I repeat, stoning takes the cake when it comes to innovation in Islam, besides the obvious that it is easily the single most barbaric act ever dreamed up as a law, it also damaged a number of safeguards within God's injunctions and totally turned on its head public conduct expected of every Muslim. Even if we were to ignore the goat eating nonsense the damage to the legal, social and public decency aspects of Islam are incalculable.
A) It forced the totally alien notion of abrogation on Muslims. Where is the “Hadith explains the Quran” crowd.
B) It introduces an even more absurd legal precedent where it must be the only time in the history of jurisprudence where the law was abrogated but the ruling remains.
C) It introduces the mind boggling reverse abrogation to the Quranic text. Translation; it was part of the Quran but a “goat” thought otherwise and we should respect the goat because “goat is a holy animal”, an actual phrase used in defending this hilarious scenario.
D) It is the only instant where the crime and punishment due process is elevated to a participation sport.
E) It damaged the air tight four witness Quranic safeguard by accepting pregnancy as the sole evidence of adultery while conveniently ignoring the very real possibility of rape.
F) Unless of course in the unlikely event that the victim fingers the guy who raped her, then it bring back the four witness condition in the name of justice (for the guy) even if it was never to be applied in the case of rape, hence for all practical purpose make it a point that no serious attempt will be made to catch the guy.
G) It damaged the fair play notion of Islam in the manner of execution of the stoning sentence. Different criteria applied for the man and women. The justification given for burying the women up to her chest is so that her modesty is protected. The number of questions that can be raised would run into scores but the obvious one then why not do the same for the man ? Especially, when they live by the mantra; more covering is always better than less of it.
H) Last but not least it directly contradicts the Quranic punishment of 100 lashes for ZINA. An attempt to differentiate between adultery and fornication in spite of the no wiggle room by the use of the word “zina” is illogical. When we take the two verses on the issue that is verse 24:2 and verse 4:15, we notice the use of the word no pity (raf) in the Verse 24:2 as opposed to generous get out clauses in verse 4:15, clearly pointing to rehabilitation. In light of it we have to conclude that if anything the former leaves little room for forgiveness, hence should be pointing to adultery as opposed to fornication. Which is opposite of what the traditionalist would want us to believe. Because a married person already has easier access to sex, therefore has less of an excuse to break the rules than a would be fornicator who typically are younger and less mature.
Hence in a single stroke, it attempts to destroy the perfect justice system gifted by God to humanity.
A question for those who insist on it; how do you stone somebody half to death? Quran 4:25
And how do you permit adulterer to marry adulteresses after they have been stoned to death? Quran 24:03
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar : The Jew brought to the Prophet a man and a woman from amongst them who have committed (adultery) illegal sexual intercourse. He ordered both of them to be stoned (to death), near the place of offering the funeral prayers beside the mosque." (Book #23, Hadith #413)
ReplyDeletePlease post reports that adhere to the Quranic standard of evidence, the obvious question here would be; And where are the testimony of three more who also witnessed the same alleged incident? You know what, if one is unable to bring forth four witnesses then God Himself declare the claimer as a liar. Imagine that. The logic is absurd, you need four witnesses to carry out the punishment of stoning but you are willing to accept an Ahad report in order to formulate the law for stoning. Ahad reports has zero value in Islamic jurisprudence.
ReplyDeletewonder how a rapist be punished according to qur'an?
ReplyDeleteZakeena@ Salam, The crime of rape not related to zina, but is classified as a separate crime of violence under "hiraba". The maximum punishment for the crime of hiraba is to put the convict to death in an exemplary manner Quran 5:33. When you combine that with other verses of the Quran the only person who can save the rapist from the death sentence would be the victim.
ReplyDeleteThe standard of evidence in cases of Hiraba does not require four witnesses, other physical proofs like circumstantial evidence, medical reports and expert testimony are admissible since it is a verifiable incident as opposed to a mere claim.
In addition there are provisions for civil redress for a rape survivor under "jirah", monetary compensation for actual bodily harm.
wa alaikum salaam.
ReplyDeletejazakkallah for your answer. so rape comes under the category of piracy which in turn comes under spreading corruption on earth, according to qur'an?
of course the four witness notion for rape is absurd, to say the least.
thanks once again.
BTW, lovely reading your other posts!
I don't understand how rape can be considered 7iraaba? o.O
ReplyDeleteSalam, thanks for visiting my humble blog.
DeleteRape fits perfectly within the Hirabah especially when you take the root hariba into consideration as well. Rape is an act of violence and it spreads fear and disorder and also very closely associated with war crimes.
I hope it helps
Salam,
ReplyDeleteI just want to add that Surah Nur was revealed around the incident of the false rumors on Ayesha. The Surah itself refers to the rumors.
Ayesha was of course a married woman (married to the Prophet)
Thus the verse dealing with the punishment of 100 lashes was likely assumed by the community to apply to both married and unmarried people since the community would normally link the punishment with the issue of someone married doing this (Of course Ayesha was innocent as the Qur'an says so).
But my point is that the Traditional view that the punishment of 100 lashes is only to nonmarried people is not very credible given the context of the (MARRIED) Ayesha that brought upon the rumors and the revealing of the verses in response to the rumors and issue of law in general.
Brother, which I assume you are (or Sister), do you see what I mean?
Omer A.