| Author | Topic |
Junaidj
CANADA
|
 Topic initiated on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 10:40 AM 
The Winds of Change
1) Given the current geo-politic scene, the conditions of Jihad are not met, one of which is at least a requisite amount of military might. [Pakistan and Turkey might be exceptions]
Conclusion: In absence of requisite conditions Jihad by force cannot be allowed.
2) Given that the majority today do not measure up to the moral depravity of the likes of Pharoah and his henchmen, and given that we now have psychological explanations to horrific events like a mother drowning her kids, capital punishment cannot be applied.
Our current society is far advanced than primitive tribes of Mosaic times or even those of 600 AD Arabia. Generally, people dont go about committing horrific crimes like burying daughters, popping eyes out etc.
Conclusion: In absence of vile depravity, I dont suppose the Hudood punishments can be applied anymore.
3) Given that women have joined the work force, and the traditional concept of family no longer applies, the Islamic inheritance law would not seem to be applicable.
Conclusion: With violation of the traditional structures, traditional prescriptions may not be appropriate.
Have not conditions sufficiently changed that old prescriptions have become trite?
Edited by: junaidj on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 10:41 AM |
|
shaheenamalik
USA
|
Posted - Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 8:08 AM 
Assalamu Alaikum,
I don’t have adequate knowledge to contribute to your first point.
As for the others. You must be an optimist. I am surprised that you find our times not lacking in vile depravity. On the contrary I find rampant moral corruption and degradation of human values such as child pornography, child prostitution, honor killings, gang related killings, public expression of feelings of love and lewdness, and open homosexuality and the recent events in Iraqi prison and the beheading of the innocent man.
Modern women have joined the workforce, however, in the third world majority of the women are still illiterate and therefore unable to join the progressive workforce of the 21st century. These women are either stay-at-home wives/mothers or work in agricultural, manufacturing industries or perform menial jobs which in no way qualifies them to rescind their rightful inheritance. Conditions have changed to a certain extent but mostly in the West; most Islamic societies have certainly modernized but their thinking has not kept up with the modernization, their cultures take precedence over understanding and abiding by the Islamic teachings.—I’ll call them the illiterate modernists. |
|
Junaidj
CANADA
|
Posted - Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 8:58 AM
>>honor killings
This is a product of primitive tribal societies, and so will be excluded from our discussion. Modern societies preclude such events.
>>and the recent events in Iraqi prison and the beheading of the innocent man.
These are aberrations and not part of a normal functioning society.
>>public expression of feelings of love and lewdness, and open homosexuality
But are these crimes for which the Hudood Laws can be invoked?
>>child pornography, child prostitution, gang related killings,
Allow me to add ethnic cleansing. I guess in these cases my assessment has been wrong. In such cases one often comes up with psychological explanations as to the condition of the depraved person i.e., the perpetrator usually has been subjected to such filth in his childhood.
Though, in some such cases the capital punishment may seem appropriate.
However, my main issue will be whether we subsist with crucifixion and amputations and reduce ourselves to the same level as those who perpetrate crimes, or whether we eliminate people through lethal injections.
Do we really have to torture a criminal to death? Is not the loss of life sufficient as a deterrent?
I suppose what I am getting at is that in normal circumstances, members of modern societies do not go about killing one another. An individual lives safer today than if he were living in a primitive society. Moreover social issues like pornography and homosexuality are limited in scope as opposed to whole nations like Sodom and Gommorrah. Therefore, the situation is still that of counselling as opposed to that of administering heinous punishments.
>>which in no way qualifies them to rescind their rightful inheritance.
I have been misunderstood here. I had written about the disproportionate inheritance of men and women in Islam.
Given that women have joined the labor force, I ask should not women have an equal share of inheritance as men?
Edited by: junaidj on Thursday, May 13, 2004 9:01 AM |
|
Jhangeer Hanif
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 9:44 AM
quote:
Given that women have joined the labor force, I ask should not women have an equal share of inheritance as men?
No, they should not have for the simple reason that the law of inheritance is not based on 'who is working and who not' otherwise this law would have to be modified in every situation and one will have to look for 'who is working and who not' from among the sons themselves. Actually, the law is based on the all embracing principle that sons are mostly and universally closest to parents in terms of benefit. The fact is that aging parents feel comfortable while living with their sons instead of daughters. We also need to appreciate the fact that a law is not based on exceptions. There may fewer cases where parents, because of the unbecoming attitude of their sons, have chosen to live with their daughters or have preferred their company instead of spending time with their sons. But this has not to change the law as it is based on a principle which universally holds true in almost all cases.
Morever, the parents, if they are ill treated by their sons, and therefore are taken care by their daughters, they can give to the latter as much as they want during their lifetime. However, inheritance will be distributed according to the immutable law of the Lord. |
|
Junaidj
CANADA
|
Posted - Friday, May 14, 2004 - 1:44 AM
>>Actually, the law is based on the all embracing principle that sons are mostly and universally closest to parents in terms of benefit.
That makes sense to me, for in that case both sons and daughters get equal amounts, but a son gets extra for looking after parents. But what if parents die? What happens to that extra amount a son gets?
Another question will be what if the general society changes such that parents live on their own and not depend on their children? i.e., old homes.
I am hoping if would contribute to the following.
Do we really have to torture a criminal to death? Is not the loss of life sufficient as a deterrent? |
|
Jhangeer Hanif
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Friday, May 14, 2004 - 9:07 AM
The shares are based on the 'potential' of benefit. This means that since sons are potentially able and have always been considered able to help their parents, they are given double of what the daughters recieve.
But what if parents die?
Inheritance is distributed after parents die. During their life time, it is not inheritance; a gift perhaps is a more suitable word in that case.
Your last question is not clear. |
|
Junaidj
CANADA
|
Posted - Friday, May 14, 2004 - 11:33 AM
My error on the inheritance issue. That indeed was funny :)
So suppose parents die, and found daughters and sons equally beneficial during their life-time. Can they then leave equal inheritance to both?
Capital punishments like crucifixion and stoning are awarded to serve as a deterrent. My question is that if a life is eliminated through lethal injections is that not sufficient as a deterrent. (i.e., is simple loss of life not a sufficient deterrent, must we resort to the slow and painful torture of crucifixion or even electric chairs)
Edited by: junaidj on Friday, May 14, 2004 11:34 AM |
|
Shahzad
IRELAND
|
Posted - Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 6:28 AM
quote:
So suppose parents die, and found daughters and sons equally beneficial during their life-time. Can they then leave equal inheritance to both?
to answer your question, no - the laws of the Koran specifically state a male is to get twice that which a female gets, and to do otherwise would be defying the Koran.. but that shouldn't stop us from asking why a male should get twice that of a female (as u have been doing in this topic)...
i'm not too sure on the 'why' part myself.. yes, in general, the sons are the ones the look after the parents as they grow older, but does that mean the sons should be "repaid" for the work they've done? or maybe it's got something to do with the male supporting the family (which is when you have to take females joining the workforce into account, and fit it into the equation somehow).. or maybe we're not approaching the question properly - if a male is providing for his family, i dont think he'd be relying on and waiting for inheritance money to help him accomplish that task... but then the money could nonetheless be put to good use.. meh, this is beginnin to wreck my head now, i think i'l stop at that..
quote:
Capital punishments like crucifixion and stoning are awarded to serve as a deterrent. My question is that if a life is eliminated through lethal injections is that not sufficient as a deterrent. (i.e., is simple loss of life not a sufficient deterrent, must we resort to the slow and painful torture of crucifixion or even electric chairs)
firstly, there isnt a single verse in the Koran that commands stoning people to death - it's maybe mentioned in some Hadith, but as i stated on a previous post, i dont think we can take Hadiths absolute truth.. and from what i've heard people say (not sure if it's from the Koran or Hadiths or somebody's interpretation of something), Islam encourages the least painful methods of killing for animals that are to be halal-ed (if that's a word!) and also for people who are going to be capitally punished... |
|
Shahzad
IRELAND
|
Posted - Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 6:39 AM
quote:
Another question will be what if the general society changes such that parents live on their own and not depend on their children? i.e., old homes.
Well, societies dont always change such that they're still in accordance with Islam... i'm not sure if taking care of your parents as they get old is Farz upon us, but i dont think it's right to wake up one day and say the following (in principle):
"Salaam, mum and dad. Yeah, ye've done a decent job in taking care of me for the past 30 years or so, catering for my every need and what not, but i think u should just pack your bags and get the hell out of my house.. for good" |
|
Jhangeer Hanif
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 9:46 AM
quote:
i'm not too sure on the 'why' part myself.. yes, in general, the sons are the ones the look after the parents as they grow older, but does that mean the sons should be "repaid" for the work they've done? or maybe it's got something to do with the male supporting the family (which is when you have to take females joining the workforce into account, and fit it into the equation somehow).. or maybe we're not approaching the question properly - if a male is providing for his family, i dont think he'd be relying on and waiting for inheritance money to help him accomplish that task... but then the money could nonetheless be put to good use.. meh, this is beginnin to wreck my head now, i think i'l stop at that..
I tried to explain what I understand of the law of inheritance. I wonder what you will have to say about what I wrote above regarding the wisdom in the specific shares stipulated by the Shari'ah.
We need to understand that children do not repay their parents by providing services nor do the parents repay them by inheritance. Inheritance may well have to be distributed of the children as well, if, sadly, they die before their parents.
Actually, mankind was facing a perplexing question of what to do with the possessions and property that a person leaves behind. The Shari'ah presented an equitable solution by defining the rights of each person within a family. The respective shares are based on all embracing wisdom of the Almighty. |
|
 Reply to Topic 
Printer Friendly |
| Jump To: |
|
|
|