When viewing posts in mobile devices sometimes difficult to retain entire content of post. There was no intent to exclude above.
I did read above carefully. Yes you are stating you are not qualified to determine what God intended. Since you are the creation not the creator. You went on to state this is purely based on belief. And each individual may views it differently based on his belief. Please focus on theprevious sentence. And my point will be clear to you.
Yes. A Qazi is qualiffied to make judgments based on scripture. But per your statement, which I agree with, each individual has his own belief system. And should be afforded the right not to be subject to an experts interpretation of the scripture.
That is completely fine. We each have the right to hold an opinion.
What I'm contending is that what we often overlook is the fact that laws can be applied to the one who violates them. So a question can be raised as to why the person may have committed the crime, and perhaps the crime deserves a different punishment, but to question the law in itself would be a dishonest approach if the law is divine according to the people of the land. And that's why each of us is legally obligated to follow the laws of the land that we live in. To put that in an unrefined manner would be to say "Can't do the time; don't commit the crime".
Yourself, me, and anyone else is subject to the laws where each of us lives, and thus we realize that certain penalties exist if we commit a crime. We can plead our cases in a court of law, and ask for a lesser or different punishment and the court has the authority to grant that given our situation or deny it, or the Judge/Qazi may pardon our crime altogether. What I cannot do intellectually is go into a courthouse accused and guilty of a crime, and tell the judge that the law I violated should not exist, or be applied because of what I think of it.
That's really all I am saying, and I think that is probably all I have to say at this time. I thank you for your understanding of my point of view.
"but to question the law in itself would be a dishonest approach if the law is divine according to the people of the land. "
I respectfully disagree with this opinion. The people of the land consist of individuals, who have their own set of beliefs. So there is no ONE divine law per the people of the land.
"And that's why each of us is legally obligated to follow the laws of the land that we live in. To put that in an unrefined manner would be to say "Can't do the time; don't commit the crime"."
Of course goes without saying that if one commits a crime one should be prepared to do the time per the laws of the land. The ONLY point of contention is if the law of the land should be based on scripture and divinity.
Anyway, it was a good discussion. Thank you for giving my point of view due consideration.
Nothing wrong. Only problem is that, if applied in Pakistan, Pakistan would have most bureaucrats, all judges and policemen and most politician without hands.
Would you like to have Prime Minister with his both hands cut and judges giving ruling without hands?
Here's another way to look at this fairness equation ...
Let's say a given country has the death penalty for eating boiled eggs outside on a Sunday afternoon in the market square of any major city ...
Let's also state that this law is well known and everybody is aware of it ...
If a person does exactly that and then gets killed was it unfair? One line of response could be ... No, it is not unfair because to do such a thing however bizarre the law is ... Is clear enough to be avoided and to have broken the law is enough to suffer the death penalty if that so happens to be the law ... It is fair because the transaction is quite clear ... It is not ambiguous ... And the severity of the punishment would be a clear deterrent to anyone who was even thinking about doing that "crime" ...
On that level it is quite unfair for us to demonise Middle-East countries for example for dealing with alcoholic expats harshly ... If they entered the country knowing the laws then to push the boundaries by doing the very thing that you were made aware of was a crime ... is clear stupidity, the fault of the consequences hence would reside with the person and not the state.
What Islam has set is maximum punishments for given crimes ... That does not mean we resort to those maximums every time, but it also means that they are not avoided or dismissed every time whenever the conditions fit ... As these laws are designed to maintain optimal order ... Yet we do not realise it ...
I would say if someone had his hands cut off for theft in Saudi ... Part of me would say ... Why on Earth was he stealing in Saudi knowing the sentence for that crime? ... If on the other hand the British judicial system sentences a thief to have his hands removed while everyone knows that is not the British system ... Then that would be wrong ...
If it is a moral question then we need to assess that with a different criteria ...