OFFENSES

In the Shariah, offenses were divided into those against God and those against man. Crimes against God violated His Hudud, or ‘boundaries,’ and were offenses whose punishments were specified by the Quran and, in some cases, the Hadiths, such as the punishment of certain kinds of theft by amputating a hand, punishing adultery by stoning and sexual slander by lashing. Because these offenses were affronts against a merciful God, the evidentiary standards were often impossibly high.

Moreover, the Prophet ordered Muslim judges to ‘ward off the Hudud [punishments] by ambiguities.’ The severe Hudud punishments were meant to convey the gravity of those offenses against God and to deter, not to be carried out.

If a thief refused to confess, or if a confessed adulterer retracted his confession, the Hudud punishments would be waived.

This did not entail that the culprit escaped justice. Circumstantial evidence, such as a witness to the theft or finding the stolen good in the thief’s possession, could lead the judge to find him guilty of wrongful appropriation (ghasb). The wronged party could reclaim their possession or receive compensation for its value plus damages entailed. This coexistence of two legal wrongs identical in fact but subject to two very different standards of evidence and punishment is analogous to the relationship between the crime of theft and the tort of conversion in common law. While the first requires evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and can be punished with prison, the second only needs a preponderance of evidence and carries monetary damages.

 In cases that fell below the Hudud category in the Shariah, judges regularly assigned lesser punishments such as a beating, prison or public humiliation.

Shariah judges did not perceive applying lighter punishments as compensation for a design flaw in God’s law. Rather, they felt they were obeying the Prophet’s infallible command to find some means to move a crime from the harsh realm of the Hudud to the lower level of offenses that a judge could punish at his discretion. This was a priority for the ulama.

In fifteenth-century Cairo, when the Mamluk sultan’s men caught a royal administrator ‘embracing’ a mistress, and the couple confessed to fornicating, the sultan himself took an interest in the impending execution. When the couple then retracted their confession, the senior Shariah judge in Cairo was sent into exile for insisting – correctly, other ulama affirmed – that the couple’s sentence had to be commuted and that ‘whoever executes them should be executed in turn.’

Offenses against man included murder, manslaughter, injuring someone intentionally or accidentally or damaging property. These were not necessarily less serious than offenses against God in terms of the harm they caused; murder is arguably more grievous than slander, yet the latter is a Hudud offense and the former is not. God could forgive wrongs against Himself, but offenses against man involved a person whose rights had been infringed. Earthly torts must be redressed.

In the adjudication of injuries, victims or their kin won either the right to request retaliatory punishment against the perpetrator (a murderer would be executed by the court) or, more often, financial compensation from the perpetrator (the family of a murder victim received one thousand gold coins, for example). If an injured party did not want to accept monetary compensation for their injury, he could request that the court inflict an ‘eye for an eye’ punishment on the offender.

Recommendation:

Personally you can also get the book:
"Misquoting Muhammad" - By: Jonathan A.C. Brown.


Rewarding Message.

Spread the word. Follow the links below to invite more friends and families;
www.tariqqco.blogspot.com
They can also like our page on
 facebook
"TariQQ Consult"
Or follow us on Twitter on
@tarriqqco.