is it right 2 abolish DEATH PENALTY???

[Hina 11(MISS Einstein)]

NOWADAYS a v hot discussion z going on,if 2 abolish the capital punishment from law......
diff groups had diff views regarding that...
it was when asked from the great islamic scholar JAVED AHMED GHAMIDI , wt ISLAM says abt capital punishment???
w anothhe replied:human life,property andf honour holds a v sacred position not only
in ISLAM bt aiso in the whole world....
and the whole world agrees to punish any1 who commits heinous crime...
however THE HOLY QURAN clearly lays down that a capital punishment z mandatory in 2 situations:
1:when any1 kills another
2:when a person becomes threat to the society.
there z no other crime 4 which ISLAM awards capital punishment.

it is ISLAM WHICH SHOWS us path of AFU O DARGUZAR..
in case where person becomes threat to society,court of law has right to award him death penalty,however it has also an option to banish sch an offender from the state...
the purpose of specifying the imposition of sch capital puynishm,ent z that courts cannot take an undue advantage of it.
now here state z announcing <u>general pardon in honour of its martyred leader.....

is it justified???

SCHOLAR answered that it z not justified as an individual has no right to make sch decisions in a state where rule of law prevails......and if court of law found any1 guilty' how can a state grant him pardon....
it was in force in time of kings bc by that act they jst wanted to enforce their sovereignty....
islam has distinguished btw SIMPLE crimes and&nbsp; FASAAD FIL ARZ..
as:
stealing a simple crime and dacoity falls n 2nd category...


**no another view z of those who are HUMAN RIGHT ACTIVUSTS....

human rights r always based on the principles recognised by world community...
and on death penalty there z no consensus in world community....

however UNO has not made it obligatory on all states 2 completely abolish tat law&nbsp; from their domestic laws.though ICCPR; has added a protocol regarding ban on death penalty bt still it z optional on all states...
the purpose of abolishing according to them z that there z still a chance of their reformation and even if later it is found that a person was innocent than it can b compensated whichg could not hv been possible if a person z hanged or so...

it z said as in SAUDI ARABIA there z pu8blic hanging 4 heinous crime so there z no crime..and 4 that sch activists respond that wt abt SWEDEN WHERE THERE Z NO DEATH SENTENCE SO NO CRIME THERE.......

comment plzzzzzzzzz

now i want u 2 comment....

1:if death penalty should completely b abolishd?

2:will sch an act b favoring in anyway?

3:will there b decrease in crime rate?

4:is it right to let power of pardon with victim/should it b givn 2 govt?(activists r in favor 2 snatch that right from victim and gv it&nbsp; 2 govt) mmmm.... i personally disagree...


5:will 25yrs life imprisonment b better than death penalty?/?

i think govt z not supposed 2 interfere n matters of law....

[Syed Gohar A Shah]

First of all I would like to thank you for giving me such a great chane to argue on this very significant and massive topic...

This is not a simple query to be adressed directly an the very topic, for this to be excavated, we need to look from sundry prisms.
First of all, I would like to penetrate into the provisions of the constitution of the Islamic republic of Pakistan.
It states that no law would be ennected withouth the very clearance of the Holy Quran and Sunnah.
For this geaometry i would say that Holy Quran has clearly unfolded the nature of the query, it gives the option of "QASAS" which is the only way to get capital punishment abolished, it states that nobody other than the owners of that body can pardon the murderer, even the murdered can not do so, if someone says that the murdered person had stated that he permitts the murderer to do so, even than according to Quran he could not be pardoned.
Secondly I would like to penetrate into the very concept of liberty, which argues that LIFE, PROPERTY AND FREEDOM of speech is the fundamental right od a person Rousseau states and nobody, even state has the right to relinquish it from the subject, thus it is the very superstructure and essence of the whole philisophy of Liberalism, even from this paradigm it can not be taken as granted that a state can pardon the capital punishment.
Thirdly, you argued that a government should not intervene in the law which does not make any sense, since that was parliament which has taken that measure, then it's the people who have been endorsing such a pathetic measures, and secondly the lagislature is to make and amend laws but those laws which can be modified through the prism of constitution.
thanks

Regards
Syed Gohar A Shah

[Artemis]

I think such topics for discussion should be written in proper English, following the sentence structure, so others may easily read and understand.

[Leonidas]

Ditto bushra's post. This is not your MSN chat window where you can write Spanish in french. Show some respect to the community

[treatindeed]

1:if death penalty should completely b abolishd?

2:will sch an act b favoring in anyway?

3:will there b decrease in crime rate?

4:is it right to let power of pardon with victim/should it b givn 2 govt?(activists r in favor 2 snatch that right from victim and gv it  2 govt) mmmm.... i personally disagree...


5:will 25yrs life imprisonment b better than death penalty?/?

Islamic Justice is Divine justice and based on Divine Wisdom.Eye for eye,hand for hand,life for life.Right to forgive or let go rests only & only with the grieved party.If a man who is killed by someone in the broad daylight and the one who is killed do not have any kith or kin,even the president/sultan/khalifa of the islamic state can not commute the capital punishment for the murderer if proved to undeniable degree.I completely oppose this move by any government in Pakistan.Imagine the pains of a man whose only innocent son has been brutally murdered and the murderer gets outta prison aftr,say 14 years.Won't the grieved father go and kill that person himself to avenge and get 'qasas' of his son's life.

Wether we like it or not,Although Islamic judicial system is a bit harsh,but i m sure if enacted properly,crime rates are sure shot to come down. In the beginning of Islamic era, justice was perfect and prompt and hence crime rate down to earth. Within days, the cases used to be dissolved with utmot justice. There was no concept of Life imprisonment...Either life for life or say through other compensation or forgiven in the name of Allah,the most Beneficient.Islam is the perfect Deen,how can then it be oblivious to a prisoner serving life term and away from his family,wife,etc. Won't his and his wife's rights to eachother get violated. Say,then the wife of a murderer shud better get divorce and re-marry....how simple?...Nay, what about the kids's rights then?A wife can legally get a new husband but CAN KIDS ALSO LEGALLY GET NEW FATHER?

To cut it short,Islamic justice is the most perfect judicial system on Earth.And,the continuity of capital punishment is but all necessary in Pakistan which is the only muslim state coming into being on the basis of our beautiful Deen. UNO or HR activists worldwide flag-bearers of their own worldly missions.As a national of an Islamic state like ours, we r but the flag-bearers and example-setters of the greatest Deen-perfect code of life,here n hereafter.M personally very liberal indeed.But where come the basic tenets of judicial system in our Deen, then also comes in mind the thought abt Allah Almighty's promised strictness to non-believers/hypocrites/cruel characters/mischief-creators,etc from this mundane world in the Here-after.

MAA-SALAM

[Silent Spectator]

Asslamulaikum,

When we consult Islam, a deen of peace, a deen of justice, a deen of

Tranquality, a deen of brotherhood, a deen of piety, a deen of muslims, a

deen of prophets, and indeed a deen of Allah almighty, Allah says in the Holy

Qur'an that

" Near to me only Deen Mubeen Islam is acceptable, no any other religion".

The teaching of Islam and Shariah clearly reveals that:

" One who kills a single human, it means that he has done the carnage of

Whole humanity".

In Islam we have "QISAAS", It means eye for eye, blood for blood, so it

clearly depicts that murderer should be dealt with the teachings of Islam.

As for my brother has made it clear that this man should also be killed on

condition that he is not forgiven by the relatives of the opposite man.

Abolishing Death penalty, it is completely against the teachings of Islam, it

must not be done, as was did in National by the brave general when the

women protection bill was resolved.

May Allah guide us the right path.

Regards.

[mohsinmumtaz]

@ HIna


To start with u wrote “the great Islamic Scholar Javed Ahmad Ghamdi” I m afraid I have a dissenting view, however, this thread seems unfit for this discussion I will start a new thread for this discussion.

Now adverting to your post,


Let me clear one thing, abolishing of capital punishment and extending pardon are two distinct and separate things and are not to be confused. As the former means to eliminate and eradicate capital punishment altogether from the statute books so as to render powerless the courts to award such punishment, on the other hand, the later means to grant pardon to the convicts to which the court of law has awarded capital punishment. The technical term for this is “commutation”. This is done under the provisions of Section 54 of the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1890).

Now to the as far as extending of pardon is concerned, I would humbly add that this is a bit demanding concept. I hope I would be able to explain it to you. Judiciary and executive are the two branches of the state, each one being assigned its duties by the constitution. Judiciary consists of the courts of law whose primary duty is administration of justice. It is within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of law to declare anyone as offender and award him punishment complying with the law of the land. Let us suppose that a person ‘X’ has been awarded death sentence by a Sessions court and the same has been up held by the apex courts. The function and jurisdiction of the courts of law end here when they have convicted the accused. Now a question strikes to one’s mind, who is going to execute the conviction? At this point Govt. comes into operation. It is a function of Govt. to execute the conviction of the accused through Executive. But this is also a privilege of Govt. to commute (e.g. see section 54 ibid.) the sentence of any person. If govt. commutes the sentence it does not tantamount to declare a person innocent, it is just exercising of power bestowed upon the govt. by the law. The conviction of the person remains there, he is regarded as a convict but only the execution of its punishment is waived.

I hope I have made clear my point. If I haven’t please point out.

Now dilating upon the question of capital punishment.


At the very outset, we should know why there is a concept of punishment. There are different sorts of theories behind it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment

go through the above site u’l get an idea. They’ve captioned it in reasons of punishment.

Now u’l observe that capital punishment flows from Deterrent Theory of punishment. The punishments prescribed by Islam are deterrent. They underlay a purpose to deter the people from committing crime.

In Pakistan, the question of abolishing capital punishment is good to debate upon. As for pragmatic purposes there would be no change in the situation of crimes whether there be capital punishment or not. Because the principle which prevails in Pakistan is “ One who wields the stick holds the cow”. You know what I am a lawyer and I have observed the things from a very close point.

But when one talks about capital punishment in KSA ( Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) it makes sense, the deterrence has worked there. There should be no abolition of capital punishment in KSA.


In order to epitomize, suffice it to say that the question for us is not abolition or non- abolition of capital punishment, the question is whether are Courts are doing justice or if they are willing to do justice whether they are unfettered to do it?

Regards,