I saw these on Jonathan Brown's article on hudud punishments
In another hadith, as well as in the practice of the Companions, we are told that an accused thief should be prompted two or three times to deny that he stole
And:
So a thief who had been caught red-handed by two, upstanding witnesses (the standard evidentiary bar for crimes) stealing a bar of gold from a safe deposit box could avoid the hudud punishment by simply denying he had done it.
And:
In court procedure, what this means is that, even if the thief is caught red-handed, with the usual number of witnesses (two) testifying that they saw him steal, all the thief has to do is claim that the item was his, and enough ambiguity would be established to make hand cutting out of the question
What I do not understand is if the punishment is not applied when the suspect denies his crime,then what is the point of having this punishment anyway? Noone in their right mind would accept their crime by knowing they will have the hand cut off. So even if there are many eye-witnesses seeing the act of theft,just because the thief denies he did it,his hand does not get cut off. Does not that mean the punishment can never be practised? Then it is not a "deterrent" since noone will ever confess it even if they stole something. So,overall, what is the point then?
Help will be appreciated
[link] [comments]
from Islam https://ift.tt/2r0AqhV
No comments:
Post a Comment