I couldn’t refrain from forwarding these points were raised in discussion about Islam and law, and where I strongly emphasised on few facts of Hudud the Islamic law, actually what people not aware of rather do know of Sharia as a matter of criticism.
Ottoman word comes up strongly when Islam sharia rule talked about. Yes, understandably because they had strong foothall into modern imperial era and ascertained power. Was ottoman purely Islam based Quran binding? Ottoman was an empire not prophetic God revelation teaching. If we talk about Islam Quran Ottoman nor Mughal the true teaching example source. Certainly neither Saudi nor Iran. Politics ruling power is different, as a separate entity to Quran for its euphoric.
Where (Hudud word from Islamic) Sharia related raised by western world there clear and big Istanbul Picture shown with illumination. Ottoman shown as the strong and the facet of Islamic rule Sharia per it was Ottoman made strong mark in the 19th century and was dominant empire with Word Islam Associated.
In the mid-nineteenth century the Ottoman Empire, which had its capital in Istanbul and covered a large portion of the Middle East region at the time, embarked on a series of ambitious legal reforms. Part of those reforms included the publication of a new penal code. Brown is interested in this new code “because it did not unequivocally disavow the Hudud, but instead left them in abeyance”.
Brown suggests that, in the modern day, that kind of delicate negotiation shown by the Ottoman would not be possible. Brown also makes some more general remarks on the status of the Hudud today. Ottoman Empire they saying, one of the great empires of that civilization. Though during Ottoman sultaniath Hudud wasn’t in practice.
What are the implications of the fact that when the Ottoman Empire created modern legal codes, they didn’t consider it to be problematic for their piety, their status as Muslims, and so on, to not include these Hudud in those legal codes? It is really fascinating. Ottoman Empire actually an empire that was a Muslim state. Its engaging in a process of reform wasn’t necessarily engaging in positive reform because it’s being a kind of Western empire type ruling style that too pre modern.
Engaging in process of reform because Ottoman saw their neighbours are engaging in legal forms that are very effective. Its seemingly wasn’t about Westernise though to modernise thought may be in Islamic way in their thought? About criminal code they didn’t have. They’re not engaged in a debate about the Hudud, to keep or to get rid of because the Hudud they seemingly took as was backward.
CNN and Tony Blair have criticised it. They just engaged in what they saw as a modernisation of how to make their criminal system more effective. And they just keep the Hudud laws there like they always were. Understandbly, what I can see Hudud term and it’s branches hasn’t been explained well in depth.
Iran a strong picture with Islam or as a Muslim Nation, rather than word Hudud they have been phrasing Fatwa misplaced word and applied unjustifiably punishment comes under Hudud law, those strongly demands other regulations of investigative prove, what’s been ignored or disobeyed I say. Mind you, O’mar the companion pbuh didn’t apply Hudud punishment for theft during famine.
I emphasise on that I approve err in mercy and highlight, “central principle in the application of the Hudud punishments is maximising mercy.” This principle appears in hadith in which the Prophet is reported to have said: “Ward off the Hudud from the Muslims as much as you all can, and if you can find a way out for the person, then let them go. For it is better for the authority to err in mercy than to err in punishment”.
What been found out by academics that: Within a century of the Prophet’s death, the Muslim scholarly establishment crystallised this hadith into the legal principle, which appears often in pre modern legal manuals: “Ward off the Hudud by [seeking] ambiguities”, that is, finding means to avoid applying these punishments.
There are a number of academic theories surrounding this seeming discrepancy between these very strict limits prescribed by the Qur’an on the one hand, and on the other hand narratives suggesting the Prophet himself advised avoiding applying such punishments. The advice apparently taken up by later Muslim scholars, who articulated legal principles to avoid applying these punishments where possible. Some academics suggest that the Prophet and later scholars were deeply uncomfortable of applying these punishments and rather in favour of mercy.
The punishment for adultery of 100 lashes on the one hand alongside a punishment of 80 lashes for one who falsely accuses another of such activity, with the evidentiary standard required for this proof being four witnesses being close enough to observe the act of sexual penetration itself. Where is any case for the later?
Contrary, there are cases of women stoned to death, beheading, etc., and reading pretty lenghty explanation on Hudud, someone thanking me for the insights she feels enlightened and questioned me, “Fatema does the fact that women are more likely to be stoned in one country show a disproportionate belief in the value of the woman? And if so this would be societal rather than about religion?”
Societal yes, pretty much I answered. I couldn’t disagree, where is she wrong? She has well understanding from the cases appears before human right panels. I further added, in it more of personal zeal. It’s often men hate and tricks. Too many things to look into and are true facts. The same men are evil in ruling often, it’s his zeal devil exercise on either in one direction or in many or all. Worse happens because the weapon is at reach whether it’s the power with faith rule or dictation power with real weapon, though its zeal.
It’s impossible to be safe from evil zeal as it spreads like wild fire and everything comes in it to strength it. Asians need to calm down to self control, what is vastly and first and foremost of Jihad. They just want to win and are winning each and every individuals every where unnecessarily, saying wrong proving right and causing sufferings and devastatingly destruction.
Islam is not applied appropriately, teaching ignored and abused, allowed to be criticised. Hudud has branches: a) Kesas – eye for eye example, to punish, or to fine for compensation to repayment /responsibility. b) Tazir – to be allowed by the leaders to decide best course of action according the situation and likely outcome and effect. For example, Punish, put under restriction, order work and educate for improvement.
Kesas and Tazir pan out of Hudud, as I wrote before. The fundamental of it is the social law and order. Hudud isn’t just simple punishment order or just one entity. In Sharia, there are Fiq and Aquueda built in also with Hudud including Tazir and Kesas. . Fatema Miah, Solihull, uk. email@example.com