An opinion piece from contributor – Santiago M
The real problem with sharia law is not the punishments.
For those few that actually do recognise the threat of an ascendant Islam in Western nations, they often speak about the horrific and barbaric punishments that are famously part of the Islamic legal system called, “Sharia”.
Often referred to as the “hudud”, examples of these practices include decapitation (beheading), amputations of hands and feet, stoning to death, whipping and caning of people and more.
The surprise to most people is that this is the least problematic aspect of the sharia.
The United States, in fact, does the lethal injection, electric chairs, and even gas chambers for those people its legal system has determined have forfeited their right to live.
No matter your stance on the death penalty, it is where the difference lies in sharia that makes it such a repugnant system.
In the United States, before a person can even be condemned to death by a judge, a complicated and lengthy legal procedure takes place that often costs the taxpayers upwards of 6 figures, and commonly, in a death penalty case, 7 figures.
The defendant must be found guilty of the crime he/she is accused of beyond a reasonable doubt and by using evidence that is clear and makes scientific sense.
And yes, while it is true some people are convicted who are not guilty under this system, it is more frequent that the guilty are let free if the high standard of proof cannot be met by the prosecution.
In sharia law, often the accusation is enough. A person might accuse their neighbour under sharia law for a death penalty crime. The sentence can then be executed by a nearby mob, but evidence of the crime, should it make it to a sharia court, might not even be admissible if its deemed antithetical to Islam, and so cannot be seen by a sharia judge.
So the first difference that matters is the method of determining guilt.
One can be a lot more confident in a system that does not put you to death by whatever means, so long as you know you have not actually committed the crime.
In Western nations, the legal systems are mostly based on a British model. And that may even have some of its principal components, rooted in ancient Catholic procedures, (where the opposing idea has a “Devil’s Advocate”)
These are also based on Greek thought (science and reason) where we can use reproducible, scientific means to determine guilt or innocence.
This means that Western legal theory is based on what is accurate and valid according to reason, logic and what we call, “Greek Thought.”
Sharia is based on what is useful for the positioning of the authority of Islam. An individual has no rights or defence if it can be determined that the conviction, strengthens the power of Islam in the region. The truth of the action bears little to no importance, much like communist systems of law.
The other difference is the nature of the crime itself.
In the West, we consider a crime has been committed when there is a victim to which, physical or material harm has come.
We generally do not or did not until recently, consider such a thing as group rights. So offending or offence to a collective could not be considered a crime since a collective is a social fiction in an individualist society.
This means offending a nationality, a religion, a race, or being members of the Rotary club or a Sewing circle could not be considered a crime as no harm had come to a given person that was measurable materially.
(I concede that thanks to massive Socialist and Islamic interference in our systems of law, this has changed to reflect Islamic and Socialist law more now)
In sharia law, and interestingly also in legal systems in communist/socialist nations, the individual has no rights. But the collective has all the rights.
So while in the West we may say that taking a person’s property, attacking them physically, and any number of interferences with a person’s fundamental rights is a crime, in Islam, the crime and the punishment is 100% dependant on the group membership of both the attacker and the attacked.
If a person who is not a Muslim in Muslim territory, then he/she is accused of blasphemy, for example, that person can be punished on the spot by a local mob, no proof of blasphemy is needed just an accusation will suffice, let’s not forget the Asia Bibi incident.
The fact that blasphemy itself is a crime of any sort let alone a death penalty one highlights a fundamental difference between a legal Western system v’s an Islamic legal system. If examples like Asia Bibi manage to make it to a sharia court and escape “mob justice”, the case will be determined, and the outcome will depend on whether or not it advances the supremacy of Islam as a system and an authority.
This is worth understanding because videos have appeared of Islamic preachers attempting to anesthetise Westerners to the growing threat of Islamic rule.
They point out that the US has punishments that can be spun to appear equally barbaric.
But the punishment is the least important aspect of it when you can be accused of a thought crime, and then killed for it by whatever means because you belong to the wrong group.
Communism and Islam both share this approach to jurisprudence.
CAN YOU HELP US REPORT MORE INDEPENDENT NEWS?