And your thoughts on this are?
Iranian authorities have cut off a hand of a man found guilty of two robberies in the northeastern holy city of Mashhad, the Isna news agency reported yesterday. “This man took part in two robberies along with another man,” Mohamed Zoghi, prosecutor general of Mashhad, was quoted as saying without naming him. “We asked the judges to focus on amputations because we are responsible for protecting life and property of people,” he said, adding that “there will be other cases (of amputations) in the future.” Isna said the hand was cut off in front of other prisoners. Last July, Iran amputated the hands of five ther people charged with theft. Islamic Shariah law in Iran allows amputation as a punishment for those accused of repeated thefts.
It means that Shariah is dangerous as it can be interpreted the way we are seeing.
You, as a Muslim, may be educated/conditioned to think otherwise. But if you look at it objectively you reach a different conclusion.
Just like rishimba said, the law was invented to be applicable in other era and other civilizations, not for today's world!
Hey Brit did you have a cage suspended from a tall pole with a skeleton in it outside your house? That may be why you could leave everything unlocked ;)
I used to leave my car and house unlocked in Saudi. So, it shows that harsh punishments do work.
Middle Age practice.
Countries like KSA have harsh sentences for misdemeanours, but still have high crime rates. If it doesn't deter the crime, then what's the point.
The simple fact is that Iran and others, misuse Shariah as and when it suits them.
It should be used in extreme cases yes. But like I said, this is how we as individuals will feel. Ultimately its upto the judge to rule according to the crime and its nature. Personally, let me add I don't find Iran to be just in most of their rulings..neither do I see them to be an example of a land that practices Islam or the shariah in accordance to the Quran and the Prophet.
i am putting in some of my thoughts here without any intention of demeaning any religion..
the society for which sharia was written, was not a civilized one. there was no education amongst the masses and the people didnt have any stable source of income. thats because, in arabia, oil was not still not explored and agriculture was impossible due to the harsh climate and lack of adequate rain.
additionally, there was no strong religion existing in that area before islam was propagated.
to deal with such a society and to make the punishments really detterant to the criminals, such harsh punishments were probably required.
the times have changed and so is the society...however, people are still stuck with the oldest form of sharia which has less relevance in this modern society.
i would consider such punishments as nothing but barbarism..
so "medieval" is all i can say to this.
make their laws and enforce them as they see fit. If the Iranians don't like it they can stage another revolution. Just another reason I am glad I wasn't born in Iran.
that's the case with laws of this world. What one land/person may call justice another may call inhumane. Just like some believe in capital punishments and others don't. Personally I knew of a Non Muslim, a christian guy, in SL who had his life savings robbed. The poor guy's mom who spoke with me was wishing SL practiced cutting off the robber's hand simply cos she knew what light sentenses these guys get back there.
I agree with you.
Unfortunately in spite of the rest of the world thinking the same way, their obsession and fixation for outdated believes, won’t allow them to see the barbaric side of their acts in the name of an excuse.
It speaks loud about the law in question and how applicable it is in nowadays civilized world!
I'm with Nomerci on this, they just become a burden...
It would depend on the individual, his circumstance, etc. If this is a man who commited theft due to severe poverty or such then the judge may settle on simply warning him and/or a lighter sentense. However in cases of those those who commit armed robbery and actually run a wholesale network then in such cases the rulings may defer. Either ways its about justice here..and I doubt anyone who abides in a Muslim country is actually unaware of its laws,Allahu alim. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
What else can anyone say?
Shariah law at its best :(
Thats OK then!
Reports say that he is ledt handed... :O)
And LIS gets the lateral thinking prize of the day ;)
cruelty - this will also have a huge impact on his sex life! :0(
So, the thief was not aware of the prevailing laws of the country? Its not Cool :(
Good answer nomerci. Please take one gold star, and sit in front of the class ;)
crowd do it themself they dont trust in police.they give immediate results to the culprit..
nomerci, that THIEF will be a liability for others..I think the judge who pronounced the verdict forgot to think on this..
hmmm, I find it a bit impractical. The culprit will not be able to work and support him/herself...especially with both hands gone...so, somebody will have to take care of this person.....
I have a less knowledge about the IRANIAN laws..So won't comment anything against for it..
I personally feel it's a INHUMAN ACT and would never support this..
I was under the assumption that cutting off the hand was done after a couple of warnings - as a last resort.
Why not just shoot them... they can't re-offend then.
When caught the 1st time its one hand. but if he/she commits theft again then its the other hand. I of course support this and believe its a deterrent for sure..been a victim myself of theft back in SL..it was harrowing!And the robbers got off scot free to add insult to the injury.
Lol LP.. I guess there has to be some logic behind it and you gave one logical answer!
That's probably right, UK. How else will he wipe his a55?
Why not start with fingers first, and work your way up to a hand.
Baldrick spot on.. If yer cant do the time dont do the crime. Their country their laws..
But can someone clarify this. Accordance with Sharia Law you can only cut one hand not both?
I believe it's a deterrent. Now if this was his second conviction , then I would agree with the verdict..
Eye for an eye confuses me. If they had caused the loss of somebody's hand, then I can understand them loosing their hand. But surly if they have stolen from somebody, then their punishment should be to have something stolen from them? Wouldn't that be an eye for an eye?
Lobot,your right... but the question is do they recognize the law of human rights?
I support the idea.
If they think medically paralysing someone irreversibly because he was found responsible for causing paralysis for someone in accident is justice, what more can we say.
They believe in "eye for an eye". It's their country, their law.
That's what I like to see on a Wednesday morning, some real compassion.
it a revelation of human rights violation which is worst act than robbery....
Yeah, stoning someone to death for an illicit relation is also cool. It's their country.
What if you turn out to be innocent after loosing your hand?
Hey, it's their country, their laws, their punishment. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
I read this in Gulf Times this morning. My question is... are amputations a deterrent or revenge?
to be dealt in same fashion, then only one can curb crime, not like a long judicial system even for 26/11 culprit KASAB,
I am personally against these criminals, as I have been a victim before and the bastards got away with it... :(