Is It Justice?
Written by Ahmed Maajid
Mr. Saeed and Ms. Maria are prosecuted for committing fornication. The prosecution does not have enough witnesses to prove their guilt independent of their own confession, and as such, the court relies on their words in the matter. Ms. Maria confesses by saying these words: "I committed fornication with Mr. Saeed." Mr. Saeed rejects and says, "I have never committed fornication with Ms. Maria."
If the court then decides that Maria is guilty of fornication on the basis of her own confession, and Saeed is not, because of his rejection, do you think justice is being served? If you think so, then consider the following points and questions very carefully!
1) In Islamic shariah, fornication is a crime that requires an act which is complete and valid only in the union of TWO people! As such, the physical element of the crime, or the actus reus as it is described in English law, would require two persons. This means that one person cannot commit fornication. Having said this, a confession is exactly what the confessor states, nothing more and nothing less. Hence, if Ms. Maria says that she had committed fornication with Mr. Saeed, it means that she had committed fornication with Mr. Saeed, and with none else. If the court then convicts her for the crime for which she had confessed, it amounts to an automatic conviction on Mr. Saeed as well, and her confession cannot be modified to exclude Mr. Saeed. The case would have been different if Ms. Maria just confessed that she had committed fornication without mentioning the man involved in the act. Since she had named a particular man in the case, her conviction should necessarily mean that the man she mentioned is also guilty. If the court convicts her for "committing fornication with Mr. Saeed, and says that Mr. Saeed never committed fornication with Ms. Maria, it is an irrational, illogical, and unfair decision!
2) Ms. Maria's confession that she had committed fornication with Mr. Saeed is a claim that needs to be considered together with the word of Mr. Saeed as well, since the crime involved is complete only with the union of the two persons. In this case, after Ms. Maria 'confessed', Mr. Saeed rejects her confession, which creates doubt, or what we call shubhah in Arabic. As such, both of them should be exonerated as no penal sanction under Islamic shariah can be implemented in case there is doubt.
Your comments on this issue is highly appreciated!
thank you!
Mr. Saeed and Ms. Maria are prosecuted for committing fornication. The prosecution does not have enough witnesses to prove their guilt independent of their own confession, and as such, the court relies on their words in the matter. Ms. Maria confesses by saying these words: "I committed fornication with Mr. Saeed." Mr. Saeed rejects and says, "I have never committed fornication with Ms. Maria."
If the court then decides that Maria is guilty of fornication on the basis of her own confession, and Saeed is not, because of his rejection, do you think justice is being served? If you think so, then consider the following points and questions very carefully!
1) In Islamic shariah, fornication is a crime that requires an act which is complete and valid only in the union of TWO people! As such, the physical element of the crime, or the actus reus as it is described in English law, would require two persons. This means that one person cannot commit fornication. Having said this, a confession is exactly what the confessor states, nothing more and nothing less. Hence, if Ms. Maria says that she had committed fornication with Mr. Saeed, it means that she had committed fornication with Mr. Saeed, and with none else. If the court then convicts her for the crime for which she had confessed, it amounts to an automatic conviction on Mr. Saeed as well, and her confession cannot be modified to exclude Mr. Saeed. The case would have been different if Ms. Maria just confessed that she had committed fornication without mentioning the man involved in the act. Since she had named a particular man in the case, her conviction should necessarily mean that the man she mentioned is also guilty. If the court convicts her for "committing fornication with Mr. Saeed, and says that Mr. Saeed never committed fornication with Ms. Maria, it is an irrational, illogical, and unfair decision!
2) Ms. Maria's confession that she had committed fornication with Mr. Saeed is a claim that needs to be considered together with the word of Mr. Saeed as well, since the crime involved is complete only with the union of the two persons. In this case, after Ms. Maria 'confessed', Mr. Saeed rejects her confession, which creates doubt, or what we call shubhah in Arabic. As such, both of them should be exonerated as no penal sanction under Islamic shariah can be implemented in case there is doubt.
Your comments on this issue is highly appreciated!
thank you!
Comments