Barbaric Laws or Barbaric Crimes?
01-03-2008
I remember my boss at work expressing his disgust towards the Sharia Laws,
without substantiation he used the emotive term of barbaric to describe the
Islamic penal codes. My response was equally swift, I replied that I preferred
to live by barbaric laws rather than allow barbaric crimes to take place. I
retorted further, that he is simply being naive and would concur with my point
if he ever became victim of the numerous crimes that are talking place within
our society. As to what is the just level of punishment that fits the crime is
entirely subjective and depends on ones beliefs. Thus to label one set of
punishment as barbaric is simply as irrational, superstitious and fanatical as
the medieval mindset that once flourished in Europe.
I also pointed out that people who advocate lenient punishments are rewarding
criminals and perversely punishing the victim further; and this proves that they
are the ones devoid of compassion and are really uncivilised and barbaric at
heart! Turning the table on my boss, made his pale cheeks red, and most probably
he had become accustomed to discussing (bullying) with moderate Muslims who are
always ready to apologies on their knees.
To further expose his hypocrisy, I asked him why he keeps choosing to label the
Islamic penal codes as barbaric when he could apply the same label to the penal
codes in places like the US. Then he went on to argue the same idiocy that we
have become accustomed to hearing from the western media: killing people using
western methods is more civilised than non-western methods. Therefore, gassing,
poisoning or burning someone using napalm is supposed to be less painful, and
thus more humane than decapitation by a sword. Maybe we should scientifically
establish this by experimenting with those who believe in reincarnation, as to
which method of execution causes less pain!
Apart from the rabid anti-Islamic venom, the comments made by the Archbishop of
Canterbury led to some discussion about the appropriate penal code and the
constant rise in the level of crime. Criminal laws in any society are supposed
to serve a dual purpose: retribution and deterrence. It is doubtful that liberal
secular laws provide sufficient deterrence; young adolescent children know that
laws gives them protection when committing serious crimes, hoodlums and thugs
rampage, rapists and murderers know that if and when they get caught, they are
only likely to serve part of their sentence, confined to a cell that provides
for their basic needs adequately. Consequently, we see the high levels of crimes
which are always rising.
The arguments made against the Islamic Sharia often hinges around the issue of
women’s rights, but paradoxically the punishment prescribed by the Sharia for
crimes against women is far severe, than the liberal secular laws. If women’s
rights is paramount, yet why so little weight is given to the crimes committed
against women under western secular laws, which is reflected in the lenient
punishment dispensed. Can the women in such societies venture alone in the
streets at night? In some places they fear to tread alone even during the day?
For sure certain places even men would avoid in fear, so if women’s rights had
any meaning they would feel secure in all place and all times. I know for a fact
that women and children roam the streets freely without fear, through the night
in most Muslim countries. Except the simpleton, most people know the argument of
women’s rights is not an honest one but political, because this is not raised
and applied to other cases except against Islam and Muslims. Just like the
selective application of UN resolutions against the Muslim countries.
Then the argument moves onto the issue of majority and minority. Only a minority
of the population are committing such criminal acts, but that is little
consolation to the victims. The same argument was applied to the ‘minority’ of
soldiers committing brutal acts in Iraq. Surely, by that criteria the actions of
9/11 and 7/7 were also acts of minorities, yet the entire Muslim population has
been placed on trial by the media.
Some will argue that dispensing severe punishments for serious crimes is simply
going down to the level of criminals, these people rarely speak as victims but
idealistic individuals living in a bubble. They remind me of the flower power
generation, high on some drugs, singing the song of imagine there is no crime or
criminals. If you are going to advocate such arguments, in that case let us
dispense with the penal code altogether. For sure you are not going to get the
criminals submitting to your moral barometer.
So, let us move to the 21st century, and debate honestly the need for
appropriate penal codes that serves as a good deterrence. If a criminal is
punished severely, for certain those witnessing it will think twice before
committing such crimes. I am not saying the West must adopt the Islamic penal
code, but it is hardly constructive to blindly criticise that as barbaric, when
acts of barbarism is being facilitated at home by lenient penal codes.
by Yamin Zakaria
Submitted by a Mujahid