Yes, now I am at your disposal. Yes please, would you like to ask? Yes. I want to respond by professionally. Speak into the microphone, please. No, but those who listen to this cassette later on, The question is, yes, I am from the heuristic side of society, and you will understand my question. You know that in so-called fundamentalistic states of Islam, like in Libya, the punishment of bodily chastisement has been introduced according to the Sharia, according to the Islamic law, and in Libya even a machine has been constructed which is cutting the hand off without giving any kind of infection to the hand. And what is your view?
They say that the Holy Prophet Muhammad has introduced this punishment. What is your view about it? I have the honour of having written an article on Islamic punishments some time ago, which was published, and which was well taken by many jurists of the world, in which I explained in detail the Islamic jurisprudence, the system of penal code concerning certain ordinary crimes, and the philosophy behind, and the effect of deterrence which they held. But that was not all the story.
Before the implementation of the Islamic penal code, it is essential, according to Islam, to raise the moral standard of that society where that penal code is to be implemented and applied. So this question of yours is a very deep question of a wider application which cannot be answered in a few words in such a gathering as this. Because you, being a very renowned jurist yourself, you understand the implications of law and the philosophy behind it.
One thing I can say, and I think that should suffice, that if Islamic system of punishments is implemented, truly speaking, according to fulfilling all the conditions which Islam requires, then in majority of cases the crime would disappear from our society. In answer to a similar question in America once, I pointed out that you object to severing of a few hands, maybe once in a blue moon in a year, but at the hands of the thieves and the muggers.
In New York alone, the hands which are severed amount to many scores and you do not object to that. The philosophy of law is to protect the innocent and if any law fails to protect the innocent for the sake of showing mercy to the criminal, that law must be considered inadequate. On the contrary, if a law appears to be barbaric, but in implementation the possibility of executions are so few and far between, on the one hand, and on the other as the effect of law, the innocent public of the country is saved daily harassments of sometimes immense order at the hands of the criminals, and I personally would much rather go for a barbaric law with very few applications than daily sufferings of the innocent public.
So these are the issues involved which have to be weighed before an answer from Islamic point of view is well understood. Secondly, the system of evidence as proposed by Islam is so strict and so deeply bonded with the sense of morality that a witness is required to hold certain moral values. In any immoral society, like for instance in Libya today, where witnesses can be bought or influenced or in Pakistan or other Muslim countries where the moral standard unfortunately to our detriment is very low, Islamic laws cannot be implemented.
It is wrong to implement any law in the name of Islam before preparing that atmosphere. It would be like trying to plant a tree of cherries in the heart of the desert. The atmosphere in the desert is not promoting the growth of cherries, is not promoting the growth of cherries. So Islam not only speaks of laws, it is a religion. So it speaks of the preparation for the implementation of laws as well.
This is why according to Islam, the prophets first attend to the moral values of the country, they transform the society, raise the standard to a high degree, then to maintain that standard and to safeguard its values, some stern measures are taken, which are very seldom applied in reality, but the society in bargain is much happier and safe. Therefore I can only give a very short, not a very comprehensive answer, but only some hints.
First of all, the prerequisite for an Islamic law is that the moral standard of the population is already so high that these laws can be applied in some form. If this is not the case, then this legislation cannot be introduced. I am of the opinion that the ideas of the West about a barbaric law, as the West says, are completely the opposite.
If you look at the situation in New York at the moment, where notorious thieves and robbers are being killed against a few hands, the situation is such that hundreds and hundreds of innocent people lose their hands through robbers and thieves, i.e. lose their body parts, and these large masses of innocent people who suffer under the robbers would be opposed to a law in a completely Islamic state, where only a few cases occur.
Because if the Islamic law has been introduced, and this is a sign of practice, then there would be very few of these cases, because people do not have the need to behave this way. Secondly, I have to say that in a state like Libya, for example, the legislation cannot be introduced, for the following reasons. The moral behavior of the witness against any case of law in Islam is very high, and in a country where any witnesses can be bought and stabbed and the moral behavior is extremely low, it would be completely nonsensical to introduce such a law, because it would not affect anything. It would be the same as planting a cherry tree in the desert, the conditions of the desert do not correspond to the conditions that the cherry tree needs for its growth.
And so the moral behavior in a state like Libya or Pakistan or other so-called Muslim countries is such that these Islamic laws cannot be introduced because the prerequisites are not there. When the prophets come, Islam is not a law, but a religion. And the prophets who come first have the task to prepare the people and slowly educate them and to take measures to strengthen and improve the moral behavior of the people.
And when this state is achieved and there is really a great moral level, then laws can be introduced that no longer make a decline in previous states possible. And in such a situation, it is then a question whether you agree with such a law. May I point out in between that there is a microphone set up here in the middle, whoever wants to spare his voice is asked to go to the microphone and give his vote there.
