A 13 year-old girl in Saudi Arabia is given 90 lashes and 2-month jail-term for carrying her cell-phone to school, and how the Islamic world deals with modern inventions with Jahilia laws, although under the label of Sharia....
Too Harsh a punishment
On January 21, this year (2010 AD), the world was shocked to know that on the previous day a Saudi court in the coastal town of Jubail has sentenced a 13-year-old school girl to 90 lashes in front of her classmates and 2 months in jail for carrying a cell-phone to her school.
According to Saudi newspaper Al-Watan, the girl had been assaulted by the headmistress after being caught with a mobile camera-phone, which is banned in girls’ schools. Though we are accustomed to strange courts in Muslim countries that pass strange punishments, but 90 lashes, plus 2-month jail, for a tender girl of 13 seems outrageously harsh, that too, for carrying an innocent electronic gadget.
It is now well known that Islam treats women as sub-human domestic animals, and this gender apartheid is its worst in Saudi Arabia, where a woman cannot drive a car, go outdoors without a male family member and properly dressed in Islamic veil; use of cosmetics is banned for them, and so on and so forth. Religious police roam the streets in constant vigil to make sure that no such crimes are being committed by women. “Under Saudi's Sharia or Islamic law, flogging is mandatory for a number of moral offences such as adultery or for driving a car, or for being alone in the company of an unrelated person of the opposite sex. But it can also be used at the discretion of judges as an alternative or in addition to other punishments. ..The punishment is harsher than that dished out to some robbers and looters,” says Al-Watan.
“This punishment is medieval and pathetic, as well as inhumane and barbaric. The girl should be given a maximum of three to five lashes in front of the assembled school enrollment, and let it go at that. Cell phones are not needed in school, and should not be permitted! However, her punishment represents a gross overreaction from an insane society. The life of those poor people is not as good as life in a prison in the USA or Europe,” says an observer.
|
|
The reader may recall that three years ago 16 schoolchildren, aged between 12 and 18, were each sentenced to between 300 and 500 lashes for being aggressive to a teacher. In September, last year, 20 Saudi teenagers, who ransacked shops and restaurants, were publicly flogged and each of them received at least 30 lashes in a public square. And, in fact, Saudi Arabia is the world's leading country in the use of inhuman mediaeval torture by flogging, public beheadings, and public crucifixion of condemned prisoners. In April 2009, during the visit of President Barak Obama, the country crucified two convicts, including one in the capital Riyadh. Such cruel punishments have been widely condemned by human rights organizations throughout the world.
Saudi Arabia is the model for other Islamic states, because the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam and its propagator Prophet Muhammad. It is generally called as the land of two holiest mosques: Masjid-ul Haram or the Ka’ba in Mecca and the Masjid-Al-Nabawi (the prophet’s mosque) in Medina. Here exists absolute monarchy controlled by King Abdullah, who belongs to the Al-Saud ruling tribe. This is a country, where cinemas and music of any kind is strictly forbidden. The judiciary is strictly based on Shariah or Islamic Law, and the court system is exclusively controlled by Wahabi/Salafi clerics. The employment of non-Salafi citizens, especially as judges, is absolutely banned.
The Shariah Law:
Regarding the Shariah Law, the Koran says:
“And to you, we have revealed the book with the truth, confirming the scriptures which had already been revealed before it and superseding them, Judge, then, between them in accordance with what Allah has revealed and do not follow their vain desires, forsaking thereby the truth that has come to you. To each of you we have given a code of law and a way of life. Had Allah so willed, he could have made you all one community: but (it is his wish) to test you by means of that which he has bestowed on you... To Allah you shall all return. He will then make you understand all that over which you now differ.” (Quran 5:48)
“Judge between them in accordance with what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their vain desires; and beware of them lest they tempt you away from any part of what Allah has revealed to you. If they turn away, then know that it is Allah’s will to afflict them for some of their sins. Indeed, a great many people are transgressors. Do they desire to be ruled by the law of pagan ignorance? But for those who are firm in their faith, who can be a better lawgiver than Allah?” (Quran 5:49-50)
As a commentary of these verses, an Islamic scholar Sayyad Qutb, in his article ‘Allah’s Law and Law of Ignorance’, writes:
“The central point in this verse is that no modification of Allah’s law and no compromise with regard to its provisions are admissible for any purpose. In the second part of this passage, this principle is stated with greater clarity. In the first statement, the Prophet (Pbuh) is instructed in these words: “judge, then between them in accordance with what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their vain desires for asking thereby the truth that has come to you.”
This statement may be construed as meaning abandoning Allah’s law in total and following their vain desires in preference to it.
In the second part, the Prophet is warned against compromising even a portion of what has been revealed to him: “judge between them in accordance with what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their vain desire; and beware of them lest they tempt you away from any part of what Allah has revealed to you.”
The warning here is more precise, stricter and stronger. It also states that any temptation to an exception to Allah’s law must be resisted; the choice is either to implement in them full, or to follow vain desires. (Islamic Voice, April, 2009)
Qutb continues:
What can one say in justification of setting Allah’s law aside and substituting for it a law of ignorance placing in the process his own desires or those of a particular community or generation above Allah’s law? …What is his justification: Circumstances? Events? People’s unwillingness? Fear of the enemy? Were not all these known to Allah when He commanded Muslims to implement His Law and follow His way of life? …Or does he justify his attitude by claiming that Allah’s law does not cater for new needs and new situations? Were not these needs and situations known to Allah when He made this very stern warning?
So, according to Qutb, the law Allah revealed in the Koran some 1,400 years ago is still adequate to tackle any situation, any problem even today, because Allah has taken care of every possibility that may arise anywhere in the world at any time. Hence, a Muslim should never feel it necessary to follow jahiliya law, the law of ignorance, created by man.
Inadequacy of Allah’s Laws
But history tells us a completely different thing. During the lifetime of the Prophet, Arabia was a land of semi-civilized pastoral and nomadic people. Hence, Allah’s law, revealed in the Koran, was adequate for solving any problem arising out of the simple Arab society. But after Muhammad's death, particularly during the reign of the second caliph Umar, Muslims had conquered many countries, including Egypt and Syria, that were advanced in civilization with a complex and well-organized sociopolitical system. Particularly the economic problems like inheritance, wills and testaments, loans, payment of loans, bankruptcy, partnership in business, mortgaging of property etc., which were mostly unknown in Arabia, could not be solved with the help of Allah’s law. So, it became necessary to find out whether such situation arose in Arabia during the Prophet’s lifetime, and how he could have solved such problems. This need inspired the Arabs to collect hadith or Prophet’s tradition, which started during the reign of pious Umayyad, Umar II (717–720). Eventually, some 1465 editions of the Hadith were compiled; of these compilations, only six are considered Sahi, i.e. authentic or faultless, by the Muslim world. And out of the six, two of them—one compiled by Bukhari and the other by Abu Muslim—are considered absolutely flawless (Sahih Hayen) or truthful twins.
From the above discussions, it becomes evident that the law of Allah, contained in the Koran, was inadequate for the civilized world even during the Prophet's time. Therefore, the law of Allah is undoubtedly much more inadequate for the civilized world of our time. Most of all, the civilized world would identify the divine law of Allah as extremely cruel, ridiculous and unethical.
Let us consider the Allah’s law regarding divorce. Allah says that if the husband utters the word “talaq” (i.e. ‘I divorce you’) thrice, the divorce would be, at once, operative, irrespective of time and space (M Hidayatullah, Principles of Mehamedan Law, Tripathy, 1980, p. 324), without having to provide any financial support to the divorced wife. This law is derived from the following Quranic verses:
“Divorce must be pronounced twice and then (a woman) must be retained in honour or released in kindness. And it is not lawful for you that ye take from women aught of that which ye have given them; except (in the case) when both fear that they may not be able to keep within the limits (imposed by) Allah. And if ye fear that they may not be able to keep the limits of Allah, in that case it is no sin for either of them if the woman ransom herself. These are the limits (imposed by) Allah. Transgress them not. For whoso transgresseth Allah's limits: such are wrong-doers” (2: 229).
“And if he hath divorced her (the third time), then she is not lawful unto him thereafter until she hath wedded another husband. Then if he (the other husband) divorce her it is no sin for both of them that they come together again if they consider that they are able to observe the limits of Allah. These are the limits of Allah. He manifesteth them for people who have knowledge” (2: 230). Every civilized government would condemn it as an uncivilized law, coming from an uncivilized law-giver.
From the above discussions, it becomes evident that the basis of Shariah Law is the revelations of Allah to Prophet Muhammad, and such revelations continued only during the life-time of the Prophet, nothing after his death. So, Allah could reveal only those things, which were there during the Prophet’s life, and His revelations could not include those things, discovered or came into existence after the Prophet’s death.
For an example, regarding the weapons of jihad, Allah could mention only swords, bows and arrows, daggers, lance, spears and so on. It was not possible for Allah to foresee that, one day, man will discover Kalashnikov rifles, rocket launchers, RDX explosives and so on, and hence the revelations of Allah do not mention such modern weapons. Hence, if a Muslim country frames laws regarding the use or misuse of these modern weapons and explosives, they must come under the category of Law of Ignorance or Law of Jahilia.
In a similar manner, a most modern invention, like mobile-phone, was nonexistent during the life-time of the Prophet. It was, hence, not possible for Allah to reveal verses regarding the use or misuse of a mobile-phone, and the law with which the 13-year-old girl has been punished, namely 90 lashes and two months prison-term, has certainly been framed by human beings. Such laws are not divinely ordained by Allah; therefore, they must be regarded as Jahilia Law.
In a similar manner, a Saudi woman convicted of driving a car or using lipstick, the laws for these convictions must be Laws of Ignorance, but not Shariah Law or law ordained by Allah, because a car or lipstick was unknown during the Prophet’s lifetime.
So, the question naturally arises: How does a Shariah Court of Saudi Arabia punish that young girl so harshly, according to a Law of Ignorance?
