Replies

ISLAMIC LAW ON SADDAM [Excerpt]

By AMIR TAHERI
NYPost.com

July 7, 2004 -- WHENEVER it takes place, one thing is sure about Saddam Hussein's trial: The dictator will be judged on the basis of Western, rather than Islamic, law.
The Western legal system allows Saddam to employ lawyers, to question the authority of the court and to prolong the trial with judicial tactics. Once sentenced, he could lodge an appeal or seek retrial. The way things are shaping up, Saddam may even emulate his fellow despot Slobodan Milosevic by turning the trial into a political soap opera.

None of that would be possible if Saddam were tried under Islamic law.

One major feature of Islamic law is its emphasis on speedy trials. This is because, in its purest form, the Islamic penal system does not include imprisonment as a form of punishment. A man charged with a crime should be tried and sentenced before the sunset of the day of his arrest. If a trial could not be held immediately, the accused is allowed to stay with his family and/or friends who undertake to bring him forth at the appointed time.

There are three categories of crime in Islam: those committed against individual believers, those committed against society and those committed against God.

In the case of crimes against individuals, including manslaughter and unpremeditated murder, the accused could go free by paying "blood tithe" (diyah) to the relatives of the victim.

In other cases, such as causing personal physical injury, the system of retribution (qissass) will apply. The punishment is proportionate to the crime: an eye for an eye. (The idea is not to exact revenge but to impose limits on punishment.)

Crimes against society include embezzlement from the public treasury, corruption and morally reprehensible behavior in general. Here, too, in most cases, the accused can get away with the payment of fines and the restitution of illegally appropriated public property.

Such crimes as serial burglary (being convicted of stealing three times) have both private and public dimensions. The serial thief has his right hand amputated and is then set free.

One found guilty of a less serious crime, swindling a partner for example, is asked to pay compensation and a fine, and allowed to go home.

Men and women found guilty of adultery are flogged in public and then set free.

The most serious crimes, those committed against God, are punishable by death in the form of beheading. A man found guilty of premeditated murder has his head chopped off moments after being sentenced.

Nevertheless, the principle of repentance (tawbah) plays a central role in Islamic jurisprudence, whose ultimate aim is to reform rather than punish. Even in the case of publicly professed apostasy, one of the most serious crimes in Islam, repentance is not ruled out.

Now imagine Saddam Hussein appearing in front of an Islamic court.

First, he would notice is that there is only one judge. This is because having more than one judge might lead to a clash of interpretations that could cast doubt on the solidity (hikmah) of divine rules. He would also notice that there is no jury.

Next he would notice that the charges against him are spelled out by the judge himself. The judge would then call in two male witnesses (or four female ones) to testify to each of the charges.

Saddam would then be asked to respond to the charges and to speak in his defense. He would not have the services of a lawyer, since there are none in Islamic jurisprudence. But he could question the testimony of witnesses and call two witnesses of his own.

Once he is sentenced, there would be no appeal.

His fate would be in the hands of the Commander of the Faithful, the ruler who may bear the title of Caliph or Wali al-Amr (Custodian of Affairs) of the community. The Commander of the Faithful could lessen Saddam's sentence or even pardon him. One thing he cannot do is to keep him in prison.

Now, what are the charges that Saddam might face in an ideal Islamic court?

He could be charged with "betrayal of trust" (khianah fil amanah).

This means he breached the trust that people put in him as the ruler of the country. The charge would also cover the plundering of the public treasury (beit al-maal), seizure of property from Muslims, wasting public funds for personal pleasure and ostentatious living.

The punishment in such cases includes restoration of stolen property, payment of compensation and fines and flogging. But it could also mean death by beheading.

Saddam could also be charged with murder. There is ample evidence that Saddam personally shot Izzat Mostafa. Then there is film footage of Saddam ordering his henchmen to take several rival Baath leaders out of a party congress and shoot them in the courtyard of the conference hall.

In both cases, the Islamic punishment is death by beheading. Nevertheless, Saddam might be able to get away if the families of the victims agree to pardon him in exchange for blood tithe.

Saddam could face the more serious charge of "spreading corruption on earth" (mufsid fil-ardh). This is a broad charge and covers a variety of misdeeds, including a reign of terror, depriving Muslims of their freedom, property and dignity and causing conflict.

The wars that Saddam triggered against the Kurds in 1969, 1975 and 1991; the massacre of the people of Halabja with chemical weapons in 1988, and the crushing of the Shiite revolt in 1991 could fall into this category. Again the punishment is death by beheading.

The gravest charge that Saddam could face in an Islamic court is that of "waging war on God" (muharibah an-Allah)....

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/24532.htm

This just in from Banafsheh...

"Hi Everyone,

Below please find Elio and my latest piece...I'm sending you the piece as we wrote it however the NRO version has been "edited"! We like our version better this time!"

http://www.nationalreview.com/voices/zandbonazzi_bonazzi200407071530.asp
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ALL EYES ON IRAN PLEASE…

By: Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi & Elio Bonazzi

As July 8th approaches, Iranians everywhere prepare to display their hatred for the un-elected Mullahs dominating Iran. These demonstrations have become a sort of national duty for all Iranians; this year marks the 5th anniversary of the brutal University Student dorm massacres of 1999. That was the year that Khatami showed his true colors by siding with the Supreme Leader, abandoning the promised reforms and the people of Iran who voted for him. What started out as a reaction to the utter brutality of the fossilized establishment by young Iranian students, has turned into a milestone that the world should acknowledge and encourage.

Iranians inside Iran take to the streets for weeks every June and July, in order to defeat the fiendish forces that now also threaten the rest of the world; however not one western politico, speaking of freedom, human rights and democracy is willing to embrace these genuine, tireless and fearless movements in order to promote or even address what Iranians are now doing, literally for the safety of the world!

On June 17th, Hassan Abassi, head of the Revolutionary Guards' Center for Doctrinaire Affairs of National Security Outside Iran, stated that: “We [Islamic Republic of Iran] have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of the Anglo-Saxon civilization." However the West (and particularly the E.U.) continues depending on the dangerously under-qualified foreign policy of an apprehensive character such as Jack Straw, the current British Foreign Secretary who was Home Secretary in the Labour government of 1997-2001 and expected to become Transport Secretary after the 2001 UK general election. He was surprisingly appointed Foreign Secretary and was almost immediately confronted by the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack, having little or no experience in dealing with a menace of such magnitude. As the architect of the policy of dialogue and engagement with a state (Iran) that sponsors terrorism, Jack Straw fails to realize that in the eyes of the Mullahs, dialogue, engagement and forgiveness is a sign of weakness. In spite of threats such as Abbassi’s however, Mr. Straw chose yet again to employ soft diplomacy in handling the recent capture of British navy vessels from the Shat-al-Arab waterways by Iranian military. After the parading of the blindfolded British sailors on Iranian TV and the Mullah’s refusal to promptly return the naval equipment back to Britain, Jack Straw persistently refused to honor the wishes of several Tory and Liberal Democrat MPs who vociferously insisted that the Mullahs apologize or deal with the consequences.

Iranians have acted responsibly as citizens of the global village, in passing on 25 years worth of experiences with the Islamist cancer and their roving apparatchiks. This year again people in cities, towns and villages all over Iran will rise and in solidarity with them, Iranians outside Iran have organized demonstrations in 24 cities around the world and counting. Now if the west is completely unwilling to listen to facts and figures stated over and over again by Iranians, warning them of the terror that lurks in the heart of the Mullahs, it will have been no one’s fault but that of the western powers themselves.

The Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran has received reports from inside Iran, stating that the Mullah regime, spearheaded by the 3 ruling clerics, Khamenei, Rafsanjani & Khatami has officially banned any gathering or demonstration. Plans for mobilizing thousands more troops and foreign mercenaries in order to quash any popular action or uprising have been in the works for months now. The governors of Esfahan and various other cities have declared their firm intention to oppose any and all action taken to ignite widespread demonstrations.

Reports from sources within the regime's revolutionary guards and ministry of information [who keep their jobs just so they can act as informants for freedom fighters], are stating that specific orders have been given to use lethal force against anyone opposing the Islamic State's directives. Hundreds of checkpoints have been created in every city and militiamen are ordered to search cars or arrest “suspicious-looking” residents under various charges in order to increase the popular fear. Also militiamen who pour into people’s homes by force are confiscating Satellite dishes and receivers around the country. Rumor's of a deal made by the regime with the Castro’s government in order to jam, once again, radio and TV programming by opposition or Iranian services broadcast from abroad into Iran is running rampant. Kamal Kharazi, IRI foreign minister who spent last week in Cuba was assigned to deliver this request to the Cuban authorities that organized that same level of interference during last year’s June/July demonstrations. This favor is of course repaid by promises of big economic incentives helping Castro's regime.

The parallax error is the incorrect representation of a situation due to not perceiving it from a straightforward and objective angle. Western societies have been built on the concept of broad-mindedness and tolerance and this is an approach that simply cannot be applied to the Iranian Mullahs’ way of thinking. Therefore, at some point the Western world must mend it’s ways, put things in perspective and act with self-preserving determination.