Basicofislam
sister
:salam2:
The Mercy Behind Punishments in Islam
Question
If God is so merciful, forgiving and kind, why would he have those who might steal, their hand cut off or those who commit adultery, be stoned to death? There is also the Day of Judgment where he could send those to heaven or hell depending on if they are good or bad, so why have these brutal acts committed here by humans when he can punish himself?
Answer.
Thanks for your question, which concerns two related issues. First, why does God, according to Islam, prescribe punishments for certain crimes in this world rather than leaving the matter entirely for the Day of Judgment? Second, are these prescribed punishments excessively cruel or brutal?
Before coming to the specifics of the questions at hand, a short introduction to the concept of crime and punishment within the Islamic system may be helpful.
Islam, based on both the Quran — believed by Muslims to be the precisely revealed words of God — and the Sunnah — the explanation of this revelation in the words and actions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) — is not merely a religion concerned with the relationship between a person and his or her Creator.
Islam's teachings in belief, worship, dealings, and ethics go beyond the personal level to provide guidance for family and social life, as well as the running of society according to its principles. Sometimes this is based on specific rules found in the revelation, but at other times, there are broad principles expressed which allow for application in widely differing times and places.
Thus, it is commonly stated that Islam is not just a religion, but a complete way of life. The first community of Muslims around Prophet Muhammad ran their society in close accordance with Islamic law.
Having said this, we should emphasize that matters of criminal law are not to be applied by Muslims living in societies that are run according to non-Islamic legal systems. Even in the context of Islamic governance, such matters must be referred to the proper authorities.
Philosophy of Punishment
Sins or crimes can be divided into two categories. There are those things that remain an issue between a person and Almighty God, without affecting other human beings. Then there are those things that have a clear impact on other individuals, or on society as a whole. Generally it is this latter type that is called, in Western contexts, crime.
There is not a country on earth in which crime goes unpunished. Ranging from fines and community service for minor offences, all the way to life imprisonment and even execution for major crimes, every nation has found its own ways to deal with those who threaten the peace and security of their society.Western philosophers talk about several major objectives behind punishment, which overlap with the Islamic approach to punishment. Any punishment may achieve one or more of the following:
1. Reforming the criminal, such as by making him realize the gravity of his or her actions.
2. Protecting society by preventing the criminals from committing further offences.
3. Deterring other potential criminals from doing similar and meeting the same punishment.
4. Retribution, or giving the abused party the right to respond to the one who harmed them.
In your question, you have mentioned the punishment of one who is proven guilty of theft, namely the cutting of his or her right hand. This applies if certain conditions are met, such as the item stolen being of significant value and not having been left in open view, as well as the thief not having carried out the action out of desperation. The first three objectives listed above could be relevant in this case: reform, prevention, and deterrence.
As for the punishment of a married man who is proven to have cheated on his wife, or a woman on her husband, it is one of the gravest transgressions in the sight of Islam, and therefore one of the capital crimes. Perhaps the clearest objective that could be identified for this punishment is deterrence, and making people realize the severity of violating the sanctity of marriage and the family.
Mercy in Punishment
You asked where the mercy is in applying punishments for any crimes in this life, rather than delaying it until the hereafter. In fact, this is the very epitome of mercy, as we shall try to explain.
First of all, clearly it would be an injustice and lack of mercy to society as a whole if criminals were left alone to do as they wish. The rights of the criminals as human beings must of course be kept in mind, but cannot be allowed to outweigh the interests of the majority of people, or the well-being of the nation.
Yet, even for the individual who commits a crime that warrants punishment, this punishment is mercy for him compared to being punished for it in the hereafter. Taking a pledge from his Companions, the Prophet Muhammad asked them:
Do you pledge that you will neither associate any partners with God, nor commit adultery or theft? … Whoever is faithful to the pledge will be rewarded by God. Whoever commits any of these acts and is punished, the punishment is expiation for him. As for the one who commits one of these acts and God conceals him, then his affair is with God, Who will punish him if He wills, and pardon him if He wills. (Al-Bukhari)
This implies that God, in His limitless mercy, may choose to forgive anyone's sins in the hereafter, but on the other hand, the sinner may face punishment according to the demands of justice. Given the choice, surely anyone would prefer to be punished in this life than face the unimaginable torment of the next. Yes, God may forgive those who repent in secret, but this is not something to be complacent about.
The authorities are not charged with chasing down adulterers and proving their guilt, so in fact, it is very rare for the conditions (that four just witnesses observe the act itself) to be satisfied. The Prophet and subsequent rulers and scholars would encourage people to repent rather than seek out punishment.
Despite this, history records the case of Maaiz ibn Malik, one of the Prophet's Companions.
He came to the Prophet confessing adultery. The Prophet asked his Companions, "Is he drunk or out of his mind?" He suggested that Maaiz had perhaps only kissed the woman, or otherwise fallen short of the crime of adultery. Yet Maaiz insisted that he had carried out the full act, and demanded to be "purified" of his sin; and so he was stoned to death. Subsequently, the Prophet said of him that he had "repented so much as to suffice an entire nation." (Muslim)
Brutality and Relativity
Finally, there is the question of whether the punishments prescribed in Islamic law are disproportionately "brutal", as you have put it. I say "disproportionately", because clearly the act of removing a hand is a tough response to crime, let alone the death penalty.
But is it too tough? That is a difficult debate to settle, as different people will have different standards and tastes. It should also be borne in mind that some things considered overly harsh nowadays were much more acceptable in the same society just a few decades ago.
Is it so clear-cut that depriving a thief of one of his hands is too harsh, while taking away some years of his life — or his freedom — through imprisonment is a fitting punishment?
If we agree, for the sake of argument, that capital punishment is acceptable (as it is in the USA and dozens of other countries), then who is to say that an electric chair or lethal injection is fine, but stoning not?
It would seem that in both these cases, the strongest rationale is their deterrent effect. Surveying the history of Muslim societies and counting the rare instances where these punishments have been applied, the positive deterrent effect is borne out.
There are three main types of punishments in Islamic law: the prescribed punishments, discretionary punishments handed out by a judge, and the law of retaliation in cases of murder or physical aggression.
The first category is referred to as the hudud punishments, which literally means "boundaries".
This can be understood by realizing that Islamic law treats punishments as the last resort, rather than its aim. The aim is to establish a society where such crimes become extremely unlikely, in which case those who commit them are deserving of strict punishments.
According to Professor Muhammad Qutb:
Islam strives by various means to preclude circumstances that may lead to crime. It strives to ensure a fair distribution of wealth… The state is also responsible for ensuring decent work for all citizens. Where work is not available, or if an individual is not capable of working, aid will be given to him from the public treasury.
Islam precludes all possible motives for robbery yet it examines all circumstances of a crime to ascertain, before the infliction of the punishment, that the criminal was not compelled to commit the crime.
Islam recognizes the strength and importunity of sex but it tries to satisfy the sexual instinct through legal means, i.e. marriage. Therefore Islam advocates early marriage and provides aid from the Public Treasury for those who wish to get married yet cannot afford to do so. On the other hand, Islam purifies society from temptations which excite the passions…
Nevertheless, Islam does not hasten to inflict punishment unless the criminal has disregarded traditions and degenerated to animalism by committing adultery so openly that he could be seen by four eye-witnesses. (Qutb)
The Mercy Behind Punishments in Islam
Question
If God is so merciful, forgiving and kind, why would he have those who might steal, their hand cut off or those who commit adultery, be stoned to death? There is also the Day of Judgment where he could send those to heaven or hell depending on if they are good or bad, so why have these brutal acts committed here by humans when he can punish himself?
Answer.
Thanks for your question, which concerns two related issues. First, why does God, according to Islam, prescribe punishments for certain crimes in this world rather than leaving the matter entirely for the Day of Judgment? Second, are these prescribed punishments excessively cruel or brutal?
Before coming to the specifics of the questions at hand, a short introduction to the concept of crime and punishment within the Islamic system may be helpful.
Islam, based on both the Quran — believed by Muslims to be the precisely revealed words of God — and the Sunnah — the explanation of this revelation in the words and actions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) — is not merely a religion concerned with the relationship between a person and his or her Creator.
Islam's teachings in belief, worship, dealings, and ethics go beyond the personal level to provide guidance for family and social life, as well as the running of society according to its principles. Sometimes this is based on specific rules found in the revelation, but at other times, there are broad principles expressed which allow for application in widely differing times and places.
Thus, it is commonly stated that Islam is not just a religion, but a complete way of life. The first community of Muslims around Prophet Muhammad ran their society in close accordance with Islamic law.
Having said this, we should emphasize that matters of criminal law are not to be applied by Muslims living in societies that are run according to non-Islamic legal systems. Even in the context of Islamic governance, such matters must be referred to the proper authorities.
Philosophy of Punishment
Sins or crimes can be divided into two categories. There are those things that remain an issue between a person and Almighty God, without affecting other human beings. Then there are those things that have a clear impact on other individuals, or on society as a whole. Generally it is this latter type that is called, in Western contexts, crime.
There is not a country on earth in which crime goes unpunished. Ranging from fines and community service for minor offences, all the way to life imprisonment and even execution for major crimes, every nation has found its own ways to deal with those who threaten the peace and security of their society.Western philosophers talk about several major objectives behind punishment, which overlap with the Islamic approach to punishment. Any punishment may achieve one or more of the following:
1. Reforming the criminal, such as by making him realize the gravity of his or her actions.
2. Protecting society by preventing the criminals from committing further offences.
3. Deterring other potential criminals from doing similar and meeting the same punishment.
4. Retribution, or giving the abused party the right to respond to the one who harmed them.
In your question, you have mentioned the punishment of one who is proven guilty of theft, namely the cutting of his or her right hand. This applies if certain conditions are met, such as the item stolen being of significant value and not having been left in open view, as well as the thief not having carried out the action out of desperation. The first three objectives listed above could be relevant in this case: reform, prevention, and deterrence.
As for the punishment of a married man who is proven to have cheated on his wife, or a woman on her husband, it is one of the gravest transgressions in the sight of Islam, and therefore one of the capital crimes. Perhaps the clearest objective that could be identified for this punishment is deterrence, and making people realize the severity of violating the sanctity of marriage and the family.
Mercy in Punishment
You asked where the mercy is in applying punishments for any crimes in this life, rather than delaying it until the hereafter. In fact, this is the very epitome of mercy, as we shall try to explain.
First of all, clearly it would be an injustice and lack of mercy to society as a whole if criminals were left alone to do as they wish. The rights of the criminals as human beings must of course be kept in mind, but cannot be allowed to outweigh the interests of the majority of people, or the well-being of the nation.
Yet, even for the individual who commits a crime that warrants punishment, this punishment is mercy for him compared to being punished for it in the hereafter. Taking a pledge from his Companions, the Prophet Muhammad asked them:
Do you pledge that you will neither associate any partners with God, nor commit adultery or theft? … Whoever is faithful to the pledge will be rewarded by God. Whoever commits any of these acts and is punished, the punishment is expiation for him. As for the one who commits one of these acts and God conceals him, then his affair is with God, Who will punish him if He wills, and pardon him if He wills. (Al-Bukhari)
This implies that God, in His limitless mercy, may choose to forgive anyone's sins in the hereafter, but on the other hand, the sinner may face punishment according to the demands of justice. Given the choice, surely anyone would prefer to be punished in this life than face the unimaginable torment of the next. Yes, God may forgive those who repent in secret, but this is not something to be complacent about.
The authorities are not charged with chasing down adulterers and proving their guilt, so in fact, it is very rare for the conditions (that four just witnesses observe the act itself) to be satisfied. The Prophet and subsequent rulers and scholars would encourage people to repent rather than seek out punishment.
Despite this, history records the case of Maaiz ibn Malik, one of the Prophet's Companions.
He came to the Prophet confessing adultery. The Prophet asked his Companions, "Is he drunk or out of his mind?" He suggested that Maaiz had perhaps only kissed the woman, or otherwise fallen short of the crime of adultery. Yet Maaiz insisted that he had carried out the full act, and demanded to be "purified" of his sin; and so he was stoned to death. Subsequently, the Prophet said of him that he had "repented so much as to suffice an entire nation." (Muslim)
Brutality and Relativity
Finally, there is the question of whether the punishments prescribed in Islamic law are disproportionately "brutal", as you have put it. I say "disproportionately", because clearly the act of removing a hand is a tough response to crime, let alone the death penalty.
But is it too tough? That is a difficult debate to settle, as different people will have different standards and tastes. It should also be borne in mind that some things considered overly harsh nowadays were much more acceptable in the same society just a few decades ago.
Is it so clear-cut that depriving a thief of one of his hands is too harsh, while taking away some years of his life — or his freedom — through imprisonment is a fitting punishment?
If we agree, for the sake of argument, that capital punishment is acceptable (as it is in the USA and dozens of other countries), then who is to say that an electric chair or lethal injection is fine, but stoning not?
It would seem that in both these cases, the strongest rationale is their deterrent effect. Surveying the history of Muslim societies and counting the rare instances where these punishments have been applied, the positive deterrent effect is borne out.
There are three main types of punishments in Islamic law: the prescribed punishments, discretionary punishments handed out by a judge, and the law of retaliation in cases of murder or physical aggression.
The first category is referred to as the hudud punishments, which literally means "boundaries".
This can be understood by realizing that Islamic law treats punishments as the last resort, rather than its aim. The aim is to establish a society where such crimes become extremely unlikely, in which case those who commit them are deserving of strict punishments.
According to Professor Muhammad Qutb:
Islam strives by various means to preclude circumstances that may lead to crime. It strives to ensure a fair distribution of wealth… The state is also responsible for ensuring decent work for all citizens. Where work is not available, or if an individual is not capable of working, aid will be given to him from the public treasury.
Islam precludes all possible motives for robbery yet it examines all circumstances of a crime to ascertain, before the infliction of the punishment, that the criminal was not compelled to commit the crime.
Islam recognizes the strength and importunity of sex but it tries to satisfy the sexual instinct through legal means, i.e. marriage. Therefore Islam advocates early marriage and provides aid from the Public Treasury for those who wish to get married yet cannot afford to do so. On the other hand, Islam purifies society from temptations which excite the passions…
Nevertheless, Islam does not hasten to inflict punishment unless the criminal has disregarded traditions and degenerated to animalism by committing adultery so openly that he could be seen by four eye-witnesses. (Qutb)