Destroying a person's
dignity should not be the purpose of lawful punishments in any society
I realize that this is
another very sensitive subject, but I would like to make an important point in
order to dis
pel any confusion or
misunderstanding. When I discuss a matter having religious implications, I do
not mean to criticize the divine Islamic religion itself nor the positive
achievements realized by Saudi Arabia, of which I can only express admiration,
respect and my sincere devotion. However, I will criticize the wrongful
practice of the religion when it betrays Islam's fundamental principle of human
rights. My role as a writer is to speak out, no matter how sensitive the
subject and try and stimulate my readers' thinking. I am not trying to impose
my ideas on anyone, since it is up to the reader to decide what to believe. I
do believe, however, that my articles serve a public purpose in promoting
discussion among concerned citizens who can accept or reject my arguments as
they see fit.
Having said this, I am
fully aware that the penalty of lashing (like any other Islamic punishment) is
a very sensitive issue for most people. Nevertheless, and in addition to the
serious moral implications of such punishment, I must speak out because unless
lashing is abolished, the image of Saudi Arabia will be profoundly and
negatively impacted.
There are many men and
women lashed daily in our country, and their cases are unknown to the public so
punishment by lashing requires due consideration and deep thought and this
should offend our sensibilities. Certainly, there must be an appropriate
penalty for those guilty of violating our laws to prevent others from
committing similar offenses; otherwise, anarchy and disorder would prevail in
society. In this day and age, however, lashing is too harsh a penalty,
especially when used on a woman; it not only destroys humanity and pride but
also a person's dignity. This is not the purpose of lawful punishments for violations
in any society. Demeaning the character of the offender produces negative
effects far greater than any societal benefits.
One who is lashed loses
his self-esteem and no longer cares for the consequences of his or her present
or future criminal actions, no matter what punishment he or she may face. What
other punishment could be harsher than lashing? It fully destroys personal
dignity and creates lifelong shame among one's neighbors, coworkers and
acquaintances. What other punishment is more repugnant, particularly if the
punishment is imposed on a woman who might be a mother, a sister or a daughter
of any of us?
We live in a great
nation that has a strategic role in the international community due to
religious, historic and geographic factors, in addition to its prominent place
in the Middle East and its natural resources. Saudi Arabia is not Iran or any
repressive regime; instead, it is a civilized country that is a member of the
G20, an important member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and more importantly,
one of the most stable economic and political countries in this ever-changing
and unstable world. This makes Saudi Arabia the focus of the entire world in
the age of open satellite channels and globalization.
The issue of the lashing
penalty as imposed in the Kingdom is troublesome, considering all of its civil,
human and moral dimensions, especially now when we live in a time that
emphasizes the importance of human rights issues like never before. We all know
that the Kingdom imposes the lashing penalty in accordance with the provisions
of the Islamic Shariah, but consider the following:
1. If the lashing
penalty is imposed on the basis of texts in the Holy Qur'an, we must consider
the text in the context when it was written and what the circumstances were at
that time. For example, some Qur'anic verses are associated with a certain
event that occurred in the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon
him). So the text was associated with a certain period, context and event. How
can some people insist on reciting texts without thinking about the reasons and
circumstances then existing or considering their context?
2. Let us ponder that
there is no place for jurisprudence in the presence of a relevant text in the
Holy Qur'an. Why did Caliph Al-Farooq stop granting people who converted to
Islam their share from alms-giving (zakah), although mentioned in the Holy
Qur'an, and declared that there was no need for them? Moreover, he suspended
one of the Islamic penalties of theft in the year of Cinders (Aam Al-Ramada).
Didn't these texts exist at that time as well? Didn't Caliph Al-Rashid issue a
jurisprudence in spite of the existence of the texts very clearly in the Holy
Qur'an and sought to achieve the interests of the Muslims without abiding by a specific
text?
3. Furthermore, Shariah
law includes many other penalties that are no longer imposed or indeed never
have been imposed as punishments (an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear
for an ear and a tooth for a tooth). The Kingdom stopped - or even did not
practice at all - the gouging out of eyes, the cutting off of noses and ears,
the breaking of teeth, and the cutting off hands of thieves. Yet, these
penalties are included in clear and explicit Qur'anic texts as stated above.
How can this be when religion is followed as a whole and not in parts, that is,
it cannot be divided or classified?
The truth is that the
Kingdom has been misunderstood and is suffering from a rigid interpretation of
Islam by so-called religious scholars who are not only experts in memorizing
and reminiscing instead of contemplating and studying, but who are resistant to
change. All they want is to maintain the status quo and suppress intellectual
curiosity and discussion.
Yet the question
remains: Why are people in the Kingdom lashed? Is this the result of the
Qur'anic texts or for other reasons? If the texts are the reason, it is clear
that clinging to the text without taking into account the factors,
circumstances and times of these verses is worrying and dangerous.
Saudi Arabia, for the
sake of its image and human rights, should seek a religious way (fatwa) to
abolish the lashing penalty in its entirety, especially when other Shariah
punishments are not enforced. We live at a time when human rights should never
be infringed, regardless of the circumstances. In fact, the Kingdom has always
sought to defend human rights before every international convention.
The recent extraordinary
resolutions allowing Saudi women to stand and vote in municipal elections and
become members of the Shoura Council are not only wonderful and welcome, but
are just another example of the truly progressive attitude shown by the Saudi
government even at these challenging times where political turmoil is prevalent
throughout the Arab world. We must now hope that these positive initiatives
evolve into legislation furthering human rights and abolishing the lashing
penalty once and for all. The question is: Do we have the collective will to do
so?
- Dr. Khalid Alnowaiser
is a columnist and a Saudi attorney with offices in Riyadh and Jeddah. He can
be reached at: Khalid@Lfkan.com and/or Twitter (kalnowaiser)
No comments:
Post a Comment