“There should be ‘modernisation’ of Shariah law to some extent,” claimed Shamrahayu A Aziz, a professor of criminal law and human rights from Malaysia’s International Islamic University, who visited the Maldives last weekend for a discussion on faith and legislature.
“However, Shariah cannot tolerate the denial of the basic teachings, especially when there is clear text in the Quran or sunnah,” she added.
Aziz made the claims to Minivan News this week after having been invited to speak in the country by the Justice Society of the Maldives for an academic discussion on the ‘Death Penalty in Law and Shariah’. The discussion was designed to provide a comparative approach between “traditional Islamic views” on corporal punishment and its contemporary use in certain jurisdictions, she added.
Under the Maldivian constitution, Shariah is turned to by the courts in areas where established law does not cover, though the number of people actually sentenced to sharia mandated punishments like the death penalty in the last few decades has been limited to three cases that have not been carried out to this date. The most recent call for the death penalty was issued just last month in relation to an alleged gang killing.
Aziz said that when considering the possible “modernisation” of Sharia concepts such as the death penalty, Islam has specific texts within the Quran relating to a “comprehensive system of life” that cannot be amended to better comply with external standards or humanitarian agreements.
“In analogy, [the] Islamic system is built in a chain or circle. There must not be any break in the chain. If a break happens, Islam therefore is not a complete chain and it cannot be a comprehensive system of life anymore,” she said. “In order to fit in the ‘modernisation’ process, the stringent requirement in [legal] proceedings and the conviction process is very helpful.”
According to Aziz, it remains a “misconception” to perceive Sharia solely as a form of justice built around corporal and capital punishment, particularly when Islam does not itself try to encourage violence.
However, Aziz claimed that particularly in consideration of international concepts and conventions on human rights, Sharia could play an important role in raising awareness “on the importance of protecting the general public.”
“No one can arbitrarily be killed by another without reason,” she said.
Taking the example of a hypothetical domestic violence case, Aziz asked that when a person is arbitrarily murdered, in order to respect the victim’s rights, should a murderer be liable for the arbitrary act that has been committed?
“I accept the fact that killing a person is cruel. But the Islamic punishment of death penalty is not something encouraged. As much as possible death penalty must be avoided,” she said. “That is the reason why the punishment can be imposed and the sentence may be carried out in some exceptional situations.”
Aziz claimed that these situations are outlined under stringent criminal law that requires specific procedural process, with only certain types of evidence being allowed to be used as a basis for proceeding with execution.
“The death penalty is not the first resort in the punishment list. It stands at the last, the bottom [of the list],” she said. “Islam encourages compassion and forgiveness. Islam does not teach Muslims to kill. There are various verses in the Quran which state the clear position on the prohibition of killing.”
In looking at how Sharia could and had been adapted in line with human rights, Aziz took the example of blood money as an indication of how Islamic law can be focused on benefitting victims.
In a case where a person in arbitrarily murdered and they may have a young family remaining, Sharia is said to call for provisions of financial support to ensure a more stable upbringing from the guilty party.
“At least, with the payment of the blood money the children can continue living. This is in line with human rights as the rights of the children for a living after the killing of a father and the only breadwinner of their family must also be taken care of,” Aziz said.
Aziz stressed that his lecture was not specifically meant to address the current situation and attitudes regarding the death penalty in the Maldives.
“I am not the right person to tell maldivians what is best for Maldives,’ she said. “It is left for Maldivians to address the issue and to tackle the sentiments of their [fellow countrymen].”
However, the issue of using the death penalty in Maldivian law was thrust back into public debate last month when the Criminal Court of the Maldives sentenced Mohamed Nabeel to death for the murder of Abdulla Faruhad, following a review of witnesses statements and finding him guilty of the crime.
The Judge said that article 88[d] of the penal code of the Maldives stated that murders should be dealt accordingly to the Islamic Shariah and that persons found guilty of murder ”shall be executed” if no inheritor of the victim denies the murderer to be executed, according to Islamic Shari’ah.
Correction: An earlier version of this article, sourced from an email interview, mistakenly referred to Aziz as a he. Minivan News regrets the error.
(0)Dislikes
(0)