Are Islamic punishments just or harsh?

Harsh

2 of 6

by Kelli Holloran

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Prior to writing my opinion, I would like to let everyone who is Muslim know that I have a graduate degree in Women's Studies, and have read quite a few books and articles about Islam, seen videos of Muslim women who very much approve of wearing the veil and had a very strong minded professor during my studies that made it clear to all of us that everyone has their own view on life. While I am an American (and probably hated therefore by many Muslims just due to that fact, or at least my opinion would not be valued), I also want everyone to know: I do not approve of the State of Israel, or anything it is doing in the Middle East. I do not approve of the "War in Iraq," I am very aware that there were no "Weapons of Mass Destruction" causing us to go to that war, and I strongly believe the U.S. Government hid and/or had some level of a conspiracy to bring us into that war. What Israel is doing to the Palestinians in Gaza is horrific. I am deeply opposed to dropping bombs, white phosphorus, and other millitary actions against innocent, unequally armed people. In fact, I disagree entirely with the State of Israel having removed the Palestinians from their homeland in order to have their own particular "Zion." I read Edward Said's books when I was a student, and believe me I am not opposed to Mulsims "in general" or feel that they are just barbaric or backwards as some other people might state.

HOWEVER, I also have a Masters in Sociology and took many classes on criminology and know about the history of crime and criminal law to a certain extent. Regardless of any particular "religion," there are two types of crimes: mala in se crimes (like rape and murder) and then other lessor crimes. Then there are many crimes that VARY from group to group. Some of these may be, for example, in one place it is illegal to smoke marijuana and it is legal somewhere else. These types of crimes are simply crimes that do not cross cultural, ethnic, religious, etc. boundaries. Crimes like rape and murder, however, do. But for all crimes, the punishments are different cross-culturally. In one place "first degree, premeditated murder" may warrant the death penalty, in another its life in prison. If you go down the list of crimes, the lessor degree the crime, the more the punishment varies. So one has to consider the fact that there has been established a certain "human rights" law globally to secure the basic human rights of all peoples.

I believe that SOME (not all) Muslim countries severely punish individuals for crimes that do NOT cross cultural or even religious boundaries, they do not even cross into "other Muslim countries." For example, punishments against women for varying degrees of a Muslim dress code. There are countries/groups that severely punish them for violations of a very rigid dress code, such as those in Iran, Saudia Arabia, and the Taliban controlled areas. Whereas women can get away with a much less restrictive dress code in other MUSLIM countries, such as Egypt, Kuwait, and Morocco. Since the country's particular punishments vary, one cannot say that a particular "law" against a dress code is inherently Islamic.

One can however say this: the punishment for certain acts deemed as "criminal" seems to be harsh and severe when you hear that "a state" is punishing "a person" for something that seems very minimal in my mind. If a woman doesn't walk somewhere with a male relative in certain countries, she can be beaten severely. How is that NOT harsh? I believe any rational, reasonable person would call that severe. We have dress codes in the U.S. as well. My daughter has a dress code at her school: she must wear a collared shirt and "tuck the shirt in" with solid colors, and solid colored pants. I find it ludicrous that the shirt MUST be tucked in, but its the school dress code and they believe that is the correct way to administer control over students. Clearly, that is a similar reason why Muslim women have to follow a certain dress code (as do men) in various countries. "Social control."

Here is the difference: if my daughter did not tuck her shirt in, she would not be BEATEN, WHIPPED, OR TORTURED. That is against the law. There are laws (basic human rights laws) against beating a person. She would instead get a detention, lose recess, maybe even be suspended from school. If she didn't want to follow the "law" of her school, they inevitably have the right to remove her from it. BUT THEY DO NOT have the right to "beat her" or transgress her own personal human rights because of such a violation. I think the fundamental problem with certain traditionalist Islamic countries is not their cultural differences in dress, belief, or ways of doing things - but that they hold these values OVER basic human rights (not to be tortured, beaten, even killed). It becomes a grey area when we discuss the death penalty for certain mala in se crimes (also legal in the U.S.) such as rape and murder - and that is not what I care to address here particularly. What I am addressing is the "lessor" crimes that are so severely punished in certain countries, a punishment that far exceeds the nature of the crime.

In my opinion this issue is about women's rights moreso than human rights. I rarely hear about a Muslim man being whipped for not having a beard, or what about punishing them for refusing to walk with their female counterpart if she needs to get somewhere? The punishment just doesn't seem "equal" to fit the social equation. If men were just as severely beaten and tortured for refusing to assist their sister or wife to a store she needed to go to, in order to feed her family - I would at least agree that it is a "mutual" issue. However, from what I can see it is a highly one-sided affair, and I would assume that most of the torture against women for violations of minimal social laws and standards is also administered by the men.

If anyone in their right mind can say that it is OK to beat an elderly woman for living with a non-male relative that she knew and cared for ever since he was a baby (this was recently in the news, he could be considered her adoptive son) to the point of saying it is OK to beat the elderly woman for that violation - I would have to say that the individual is not a reasonable, rational adult and has severely allowed their religious faith to cloud their ability to see basic human rights standards or even compassion for another human being.

Learn more about this author, Kelli Holloran.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.