Donate Now

Update on the threats against Nahla Mahmoud

Update on the threats against Nahla Mahmoud

  • Posted by Maryam Namazie
  • On September 4, 2013
  • 9 Comments
  • ex-muslim, Nahla Mahmoud

nahlaAs you know, following an interview on Channel 4 on Sharia law, Islamists threatened Sudanese secular campaigner and Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain Spokesperson Nahla Mahmoud with death, calling her a “Kafira” and “Murtada” who has offended Islam and brought “fitnah”. One of those making the threats was Salah al Bandar (or Salah al Bander) who has until recently been a Liberal Democrat Councillor.

Spencer Hagard, Chair of the Cambridge Liberal Democrats, initiated an investigation into the allegations against al Bandar and found them “groundless”. Instead, he said the inquiry “increased [his] previously high esteem for” al Bandar. This despite the fact that an independent translation was not carried out by the Lib Dems to verify the threats made nor was any of the documented threats made against Nahla Mahmoud addressed other than to say that the quotes were a “gross distortion”, and “utterly misrepresented”. See article on this here.

Kafir(a) and Murtad(a) are well known derogatory terms meaning infidel and apostate; moreover, fitnah is another derogatory term against disobedient women who are seen to be the source of chaos or affliction in society. Given that apostasy is punishable by death in ten countries including Sudan, and a prosecutable offence in many more, the terms can hardly be considered positive and open to distortion.

Rather than addressing the specific threats made against Nahla Mahmoud, al Bandar mentions his “dedicat[ion] to individual human rights”, including with organisations like Sudan Organisation Against Torture (SOAT).

The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain finds this wholly unacceptable and calls on the Lib Dems to provide a detailed response with regards the complaint against al Bandar. His questionable “human rights” record is irrelevant and can hardly be used in his defence.

SOAT, the group al Bandar cites as proof of his commitment to human rights, has in fact had problems with him. Founding members of the organisation wrote a letter in September 2008 saying that the board of trustees headed by al Bandar was acting “opposite to its vision and values.” They went on to say: “we have serious concerns and doubts about the constituency and legitimacy of the current board of trustees of the organisation. We believe that the election procedure of the board was inappropriate, lacked transparency and equal opportunities to participate. In fact it has been manipulated. As a result, we have explained and informed the UK Charity Commission of the current situation.” The letter can be seen here.

In another open letter to Salah al Bandar in August 2008, a number of human rights organisations and activists wrote about the “distressing attempts to undermine organisations and activists” in Sudan, including actions “not in line with the values of the human rights movement”, such as “failure to pay financial remuneration to staff and volunteers” and the “campaign of unfair dismissals against the organisations’ human rights defenders”, which according to the letter “violates the core principles of the rights for which we are still working”. The letter can be found here: Pages 1-2, Pages 3-4.

Liz Hodgkin, the previous head of Amnesty International’s Sudan section, refused to receive an award from SOAT in August 2008, for reasons explained in a letter to Salah al Bandar. “I felt very honoured when I was told I had a prize from SOAT in honour of Nazik Mohammed Osman, since I admired so greatly Nazik Osman and enormously respect the past work of SOAT. However, since the public announcement … I understand that there are deep problems within the organization between the Board of Trustees and the workers and activists on the ground in the Khartoum Centre for Human Rights and Environmental Development in Khartoum. I have no wish and no right to make a pronouncement as to the rights and wrongs of the conflict between staff members and the board of trustees of the Sudan Organization Against Torture. However, I feel that in a situation of such division you should not now be awarding a prize in honour of Nazik Osman Mahmoud and I am not able to accept such a prize.” She added: “A human rights organization has to be especially careful to maintain the human rights of those who work for it and with it.”

Furthermore, that same year, al Bandar used personal information obtained from Bashair Ahmed’s employee file at SOAT to intervene in her case against Amnesty International regarding race discrimination. Bashair issued a public letter to al Bandar saying: “I don’t know you nor know why you decided to pick up on my case and target the organisation in a way which seems personal and doubting the credibility and overall commitment of the organisation toward human rights. Your invasion to my personal and family life, without permission, collecting information and posting it around – including many untrue details- have complicated my personal and professional life and created serious concerns among many family members. You have also used your position as the head of SOAT, which I used to work at long time before you were hired, to access confidential and personal information from my folder there. I would like to remind you here that this could be considered as a crime according to the UK Data Protection Act 1998, which the organisation is signed up to.”

Another organisation, the Sudanese Communist Party/UK and Ireland branch, of which Al Bandar was a member, issued a statement on 17 January 2012 saying al Bandar has “used many different mechanisms including lying, spying, manipulating, black-mailing, and doubting the credibility and commitment of many members of the Communist Party”.

The statement said al Bandar used three main approaches in doing this, namely “targeting the work and members of the Sudanese Communist Party in the UK”, and “divid[ing], creat[ing] conflicts on both political and social levels among the diaspora opposition and its networks especially in the UK.” His third approach was “destroying Sudanese human rights’ organisations. Especially those which investigate and document human rights abuses and violations of the current government in order to take further legal actions. The ‘Sudanese organisation for Human Rights’ is one example where he accused its general secretary Abd Alsalam Hassan and other members of fraud. He handed out a statement at the same day of the organisation’s AGM concluding so. His statement was dismissed after the actual financial report was presented. Another example was creating conflicts and destroying- along with others- the work of the ‘Sudanese Organisation Against Torture (SOAT)’/ UK, which used to play a significant role through its partner organisations in Sudan, in documenting torture cases, leading trials and putting international pressure on the Sudanese government under the increasing violations and abuses in Sudan.”

The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain calls on the Lib Dems to address the documented evidence of al Bandar’s threats rather than listing his questionable human rights record.

Al Bandar may think the usual double speak of saying one thing to an Arabic-speaking audience and another to an English-speaking one will suffice as a defence as it clearly has for Hagard. Nonetheless, we insist on a proper investigation.

Moreover, when approached by Nahla Mahmoud, the police said that nothing could be done and that Nahla should try not to “anger” al Bandar any further. The CEMB reiterates its call on the police to take the matter of threats against Nahla Mahmoud and ex-Muslims seriously and to take action to protect her.

Hundreds of individuals and groups have already signed on to an open letter calling for the authorities to take action. You (and/or your organisation) can read more about the specific threats made by al Bandar and sign the open letter here.

As can be expected, this issue had hardly been covered by the mainstream media other than by Nick Cohen in the Spectator and Anne Marie Waters in Standpoint magazine.

For more information on the above, please contact Nahla Mahmoud or Maryam Namazie at exmuslimcouncil@gmail.com.

NOTES

1. 14 September Rally and March for Secularism: Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain is endorsing the Central London Humanist Group’s Secular Europe March and Rally on Saturday 14th September 2013. We will assemble at 12.30pm in Temple Place, next to Temple Tube Station; the March will start at 1.00pm and end in a Rally at Richmond Terrace, opposite Downing Street at around 2pm. Confirmed speakers include Sue Cox (Survivors Voice), Charlie Klendjian (Lawyers Secular Society), Rory Fenton (AHS President), Philosopher AC Grayling, Adam Knowles (Chair of GALHA – LGBT Humanists), Philosopher Stephen Law, Houzan Mahmoud (Organisation for Iraqi Women’s Freedom), Nahla Mahmoud (Council of Ex Muslims of Britain), Maryam Namazie (Fitnah, CEMB and One Law for All), Pragna Patel (Southall Black Sisters), Naomi Phillips (Chair of Labour Humanists), Nina Sankari (Polish Rationalist Association) and Anne Marie Waters (One Law for All) amongst others. More information available here: Join event page on Facebook and Event page on Meetup. We will be using the hashtag #SECM2013.

2. Other events: In the upcoming months, there will be evening drinks in London with philosopher Arif Ahmed and a meet-up of apostate asylum seekers and refugees on 19 September; lunch in Manchester on 24 August and Birmingham on 7 September organised by the Northern Ex-Muslim Meetup Group and the CEMB’s Annual General Meeting on 12 October 2013 in London. More details can be found here.

3. Support us: Help us to continue our important work: volunteer your skills; ‘Like’ our Facebook page; follow our Twitter account @CEMB_forum; join our events; and subscribe to our YouTube channel. Please donate if you can. No amount is too small and every bit helps. We are also in desperate need of office space so if you know of any free or reasonable spaces in central London please do contact us. A huge thank you to our donors and particularly those who support us on a monthly basis, including the many individuals and the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science UK.

Maryam Namazie
Nahla Mahmoud
Spokespersons
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
BM Box 1919, London WC1N 3XX, UK
tel: +44 (0) 7719166731
email: exmuslimcouncil@gmail.com
web: http://ex-muslim.org.uk/

 

 

9 Comments

Larry Silverstein
Reliance of the Traveller Revised Edition The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law 'Umdat al-Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) in Arabic with Facing English Text, Commentary, and Appendices Edited and Translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller e13.0 THE MENSTRUAL PERIOD e 13.1 The minimal age for menstruation is about 9 full years. There is no maximal age for the end of it, as it is possible until death. The minimal menstrual period is a day and a night. It generally lasts 6 or 7 days. The maximal period is 15 days. The minimal interval of purity between two menstruations is 15 days. There is no maximal limit to the number of days between menstruations. e13.2 Whenever a woman who is old enough notices her bleeding, even if pregnant, she must avoid what a woman in her period avoids (def: e 13.4). If it ceases in less than 24 hours (lit. "the minimum"), then it is not considered menstruation and the woman must make up the prayers she has omitted during it. If it ceases at 24 hours, within 15 days, or between the two, then it is menstruation. If it exceeds 15 days, then she is a woman with chronic vaginal discharge (dis: e13.6). Yellow or dusky colored discharge is considered menstrual flow. If a woman has times of intermittent bleeding and cessation during an interval of 15 days or less, and the times of bleeding collectively amount to at least 24 hours, then the entire interval, bleeding and non-bleeding, is considered menstruation. e13.3 Postnatal bleeding (nifas) lasts at least a moment, generally 40 days, and at most 60. If it exceeds this, the woman is considered to have chronic vaginal discharge (dis: e13.6). e13.4 All things unlawful for someone in a state of major ritual impurity (janaba) (dis: elO.7) are unlawful for a woman during her menstruation and postnatal bleeding. It is also unlawful for her to fast then, and the (N: obligatory) fast-days she misses must be made up later, though not missed prayers. It is unlawful for her: (1) to pass through a mosque when she thinks some of her blood might contaminate it (N: and it is unlawful for her to remain in the mosque under any circumstances (n: when menstruating or during postnatal bleeding»; (2) to make love, or take sexual enjoyment from what is between her navel and knees; (3) to be divorced; (4) or to perform purification with the intention to raise a state of ritual impurity. When her bleeding ceases, then fasting, divorce. purification, and passing through the mosque are no longer unlawful for her, though the other things remain unlawful for her until she performs the purificatory bath (ghusl, def: ell). e 13.5 If a woman claims to be having her period, but her husband does not believe her, it is lawful for him to have sexual intercourse with her. e13.6 A woman with chronic vaginal discharge (N: preparing to pray) should wash her private parts, apply something absorbent to them and a dressing, and then perform ablution (N: with the intention discussed above at e5.3). She may not delay (N: commencing her prayer) after this except for reasons of preparing to pray such as clothing her nakedness, awaiting the call to prayer (adhan), or for a group to gather for the prayer. If she delays for other reasons, she must repeat the purification. She is obliged to wash her private parts, apply a dressing. and perform ablution before each obligatory prayer (N: though she is entitled, like those mentioned below, to perform as many nonobligatory prayers as she wishes, carry and read the Koran, etc. until the next prayer's time comes (n: or until her ablution is broken for a different reason), when she must renew the above measures and her ablution). e13.7 People unable to hold back intermittent , drops of urine coming from them must take the same measures (def: above) that a woman with chronic vaginal discharge docs. (N: And likewise for anyone in a state of chronic annulment of ablution, such as continually breaking wind, excrement, or madhy (def: eIO.5), though washing and applying an absorbent dressing are only obligatory when filth exits.) (A: If a person knows that drops of urine will not stop until the time for the next prayer comes, then he takes the above measures and performs the prayer at the first of its time.) * RELIANCE OF THE TRAVELLER: A CLASSIC MANUAL OF ISLAMIC SACRED LAW Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri w45.0 A WIFE'S MARITAL OBLIGATIONS (from m5.I, end) A WIFE'S MARITAL OBLIGATIONS IN THE SHAFI'I SCHOOL * w45.1 (Abu Ishaq Shirazi:) A woman is not obliged to serve her husband by baking, grinding flour, cooking, washing, or any other kind of service, because the marriage contract entails, for her part, ONLY THAT SHE LET HIM ENJOY HER SEXUALLY, and she is not obligated to do other thar. that. (A: Rather, it is considered sunna in our school for the wife to do the housework, and the husband (who is obliged to support her) to earn the living, since this is how the Prophet (Allah bless him and give. him peace) divided the work between Fatima and 'Ali (Allah be well pleased with them)) (alMuhadhdhab fi fiqh ai-Imam al-Shafi'i (yI25), 2.68). A WIFE'S MARITAL OBLIGATIONS IN THE HANAFI SCHOOL w45.2 (Nahlawi:) The wife's serving her husband at home-by cooking, cleaning, and baking bread-is religiously obligatory for her, and if she does not, she is committing a sin, though it is not something that she may be forced to do by the court (al-Durar al-mubaha fi ai-hazr wa ai-ibaha (y99),I72).
Martyn
Actually it was Maryam's earlier post of 'Report them!' I refer to. Apologies... again.
Martyn
@ number 5; I had misconstrued your sentence of 'And that would be why a lot of folks don’t even bother reporting' as a cheap mockery regarding Maryam's earlier in the year post 'Just report it'. I was wrong. I'll say I was wrong. I'm sorry.
WithinThisMind
Hey, number 4, jackass, I did sign the letter. Maryam just asked a question in one of her earlier posts, and look, here, amazingly, there was the answer, in the blog post she just wrote. I know, I know, terrible that I expressed a hope someone learn something.
Martyn
@ Number 2; Look, over at Greta Christina's place Richard Dawkins is being attacked. Yup, he's being accused of 'black-balling' (what ever the hell that means). Why don't you go over and join in the witch hunt. He's being labelled as a racist and misogynist too. It should keep you busy. Either that or you could do something productive, like sign the fucking open letter on behalf of this young woman instead of making petty quips. @ Maryam, thanks for all the information and education.
Threats against Nahla Mahmoud « Skeptical Science
[…] Maryam Namazie has an update on what has been happening, I’m reproducing it in full here without any edits or additional comment  … […]
Bicarbonate
Signed, subscribed, liked.
Around FtB » Pharyngula
[…] Maryam Namazie updates us all on the death threats against Nahla Mahmoud. […]
WithinThisMind
And that would be why a lot of folks don't even bother reporting.
Larry Silverstein
ISLAM IS A FARCE! MOHAMMED & HIS COMPANIONS WERE HIGHWAY ROBBERS: RELIANCE OF THE TRAVELLER: A CLASSIC MANUAL OF ISLAMIC SACRED LAW Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri Based on this Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Mohammed & his Gang of Highway Robbers should have had their limbs & legs cut off & then killed. WAS BADR A BATTLE OR MOHAMMAD’S HIGHWAY ROBBERY? The skirmiss between Muhammad's army and his Meccan opponents is seem as the most glorious battle in Islam. In reality, it does not qualify to be a battle at all, but a treacherous highway robbery by desert decoits. In this article I investigate the claim that the events at Badr constitute a battle. For fourteen centuries, Muslims refer to the incidents at Badr as the Battle of Badr, the most glorious one in Islam. It is my conviction that the events at Badr were not elements that constitute what can be called a battle. I provide evidence to my claim below. What is a Battle? A battle is understood as an encounter of two opponent armies. There should an element of prior knowledge between the two parties that they are warring each other. Is this what happened at Badr? Let us investigate that. Islamic sources Al-Islam website has some interesting remarks on the events at Badr. Here are some quotes: 1. The Battle of Badr is one of the greatest and most famous battles of Islam and those who participated in it enjoyed a special distinction amongst the Muslims. 2. One of the praiseworthy policies adopted by the Prophet in all the battles (the details of which will be given later) was that he used to collect information about the strength of the enemy and his location. And even till today the question of procurement of information enjoys great importance in global as well as local wars. It is true that collection of information is good whether in times of peace or war. We collect information and analyze it when we fight disease, plan to buy a home, go to one of many universities... etc. Even if we were a gang of bandits wanting to rob a commercial caravan, it is very important to collect information to know if what we are robbing is of any value or not, and if it is worth it to risk our lives or not. Muslims believe that Badr is a battle; not just any battle, but a great battle of early Islam. Or is it? The events leading to Badr In The Life of Muhammad, which is a translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah (translated by Guillaume, 21st impression, 2007), we can easily find the truth about the incidents involved in what Muslims call the battle of Badr (p. 289 and after). Let’s look at some quotes and do some critical analysis: “…when the apostle heard about Abu Sufyan coming from Syria, he summoned the Muslims and said, ‘This is the Quraysh caravan containing their property. Go out to attack it, perhaps God will give it as a prey.’” (p. 289) The above is the reason that started the events leading to what happened at Badr. Does this look like going to battle, or going to do some highway robbery? What is the difference between what Muhammad was trying to do, and what the Somali pirates try to do? What Muhammad said reminds me of what the robbers of cowboy movies used to do. Jesse James and billy the kid used to do similar things. They would hear about some caravan or train, loaded with commodities, money or gold, then they would talk to the gang members and set out on their way to do the robbery. This is what Muhammad is doing here. He heard about a commercial caravan lightly protected by about thirty or forty people, so he summons his gang; the Muslims, to get moving so they can do the robbery. Muslims, off course, try to justify what Muhammad is trying to do. Al-Islam website that I linked the reader to does just that: As Quraysh had confiscated the property of Muslim Muhajirs residing in Madina, it was only appropriate that the Muslims should also confiscate their merchandise and if they persisted in withholding the property of the Muhajir Muslims on account of their enmity and obstinacy, the Muslims should, as a retaliatory measure, divide their merchandise amongst themselves as war booty. The above justification of what Muhammad and his bandits tried to do and did at Badr is, as we say in Arabic ‘an excuse that is worse than admittance of guilt’. The claim is that Muhammad was justified in attacking a Qurayshi commercial caravan because when the Meccan Muslims immigrated to Medina, the Qurayshites took over their property, is ludicrous. First of all, there is no supporting evidence to such a grand claim. Second, even if some people of Quraysh took over some of what was left by the immigrants, it was their family members left in Mecca who did that. This is a family matter in this case. Third, suppose I came to your home and stole an expensive computer, does this justify you going to a food store and robbing it just because I am one of the share-holders of that store? In short, the above claim in Al-Islam website cannot be defended. My goal of this article is not to relay the story of Badr, but rather to analyze its nature. In any case the story goes as follows: Abu Sufyan, the caravan leader realized that Muhammad and his bandits are trying to attack and steal all of what they had, so he changes the travel route and reaches Mecca safely. Abu Sufyan also sent someone to Mecca alarming them about what Muhammad and his bandits were up to, and asked the Quraysh to send their men to help protect the caravan, which they did. Now, does this look like Quraysh is trying to make war upon Muhammad, or, are they just trying to protect their livelihood in securing the safety of the incoming ommercial caravan that Abu Sufyan is in charge of? Once the caravan was secured, Abu Sufyan sends word to the Qurayshites that the caravan is safe, and that they should go back to Mecca. Sure enough, some of the Qurayshites go back. However, Abu Jahl, one of Quraysh leaders, and some others decided to stay. Here is why: Abu Jahl said, ‘By God, we will not go back until we have been to Badr’- Badr was the site of one of the Arab fairs where they used to hold a market every year. ‘We will spend three days there, slaughter camel and feast and drink wine, and the girls shall play for us. The Arabs will hear that we have come and gathered together, and respect us in future. So come on!’ (Sirat, p. 296) Now, Muslims love to vilify two people in early Islam, one of them is Abu Jahl (abu Lahab being the other). Does the above quote tell of a man going to war? You see, this man, while Muhammad was in Mecca, made fun of Muhammad, and knew that Muhammad was a crazed man. Narcissists never forget things like that. Muslims follow Muhammad’s suit and hate Abu Jahl, because Muhammad did. But clearly, the above quote tells of a man wanting to have a good time. War and fighting at Badr is not on his mind. Since I myself enjoy a good glass of wine, I think I would have enjoyed visiting with Abu Jahl if we were living in the same time period. All he wanted to do is go to Vegas (Badr!!) and have some enjoyable time. Now, it is important to understand Muhammad at that point in time. He had becoming the sole leader of Mecca in his mind all along. When he moved to Medina, he always inquired, and sent groups of Muslims to watch for Qurayshi caravans for possible looting. His first success was the Nakhla raid, but it was not his first attempt. He had many failed attempts before. Now, to become a leader of Mecca, an option is to kill some of its leaders who are a hindrance to Muhammad. This is exactly what Muhammad did at Badr. The Muslims controlled the route to the water, and killed many Muslims trying to get some water. Now, the killing of Abu Jahl was the prized trophy of Badr as far as Muhammad’s concern. The man, Abu Jahl, made fun of him in Mecca. And he would be a great obstacle for Muhammad taking over control of Mecca if the chance arises. So, killing him and some of the other Meccan leaders would make an easier road for Muhammad in controlling and taking over Mecca in the future. What we have here is not really a battle, but rather the Muslims ambushing the Qurayshites, thus killing some of them (mostly when they were trying to get some water to drink), including some of the leaders, and imprisoning the rest. True, the commercial caravan escaped, but the Muslims could still get some ransom money for the imprisoned ones. History bears me out here. Muhammad and the Muslims got a lot of compensation for the Badr Qurayshite prisoners. 015.0 THE PENALTY FOR HIGHWAY ROBBERY 015.1 The caliph is obliged to summon whoever uses a weapon (0: though force suffices to be considered a weapon, or taking money by dint of one's fists) and makes people afraid to use the road (0: no matter whether in the wilderness, a village, or in the country; meaning he frightens those who pass along the way by means of his strength or weapons). If the highwayman responds to the summons before he has injured anyone, then he is only disciplined (def: 017). If he steals the equivalent of 1.058 grams of gold under the previously mentioned conditions (014.1), both his right hand and left foot are amputated. (A: The difference between a highwayman and someone who takes by forcible seizure (dis: 014.6) is that the latter does so within earshot of help, while the offense of the highwayman is far greater because he menaces the lifeline of the community, its trade routes.) 015.2 If a highwayman kills someone, he must be executed, even when the person entitled to retaliation (def: 03) agrees to forgo it. If the highwayman robs and kills, he is killed and then left crucified for three days. If he wounds or maims someone, retaliation is taken against him, though it may be waived by those entitled to take it. 015.3 (N: The penalty for highway robbery, such as mandatory execution, crucifixion, and amputating the hand and foot, is cancelled if the highwayman repents (A: desists, and gives himself up) before he has been apprehended, though he is still liable to retaliation (def: 03) by parties entitled to it (A: for injuries or deaths he caused to victims) and is financially responsible for restoring the money he has taken.) 014.0 THE PENALTY FOR THEFT 014.1 A person's right hand is amputated. whether he is a Muslim, non-Muslim subject of the Islamic state, or someone who has left Islam, when he: (a) has reached puberty; (b) is sane; (c) is acting voluntarily; 014.2 Justice (d) and steals at least a quarter of a dinar (n: 1.058 grams of gold) or goods worth that much (A: at the market prices current) at the time of the theft; (e) from a place meeting the security requirements normal (A: in that locality and time) for safeguarding similar articles (def: 014.3); (f) provided there is no possible confusion (dis: 014.2(3» as to whether he took it by way of theft or for some other reason. If a person steals a second time, his left foot is amputated; if a third time, then his left hand; and if he steals again, then his right foot. If he steals a fifth time, he is disciplined (def: 017). If he does not have a right hand (N: at the first offense), then his left foot is amputated. If he has a right hand but loses it after the theft (0: by an act of God) but before he has been punished for it, then nothing is amputated. After amputation, the limb is cauterized with hot oil (A: which in previous times was the means to stop the bleeding and save the criminal's life). 014.2 A person's hand is not amputated when: (1) (non-(d) above) he steals less than the equivalent of] .058 grams of gold; (2) (non-(e» he steals the article from a place the does not meet normal requirements for safeguarding similar articles (dis: below); (3) or (non-(f» when there is a possible confusion as to why he took it, as when it was taken from the Muslim common fund (bayt ai-mal) (0: provided the person is Muslim, since he might have intended to use it to build mosques, bridges, or hospices), or when it belongs to his son or father. 014.3 A place that meets normal security requirements for safeguarding similar articles means a place appropriate for keeping the thing, this varying with the type of article, the different countries, and with the justness of the ruler or lack of it, as well as the ruler's relative strength or weakness. A suitable place for safeguarding fine clothes, money, jewels, and jewelry, for example, is a locked box; the place for trade goods, a locked warehouse with guards; the place for livestock, a stable; the place for pallets and bedding, a shelf in the house; and the place for a shroud, the grave. 014.4 If two persons jointly steal the equivalent of 1.058 grams of gold, then neither's hand is amputated. 014.5 A freeman's hand may not be amputated by anyone besides the caliph or his representative (def: 025). 014.6 There is no amputation for forcible seizure (0: meaning someone relying on foree (N: to take people's money, who has a gang nearby to abet him in this», snatching (0: meaning someone who depends on running away and is unarmed), or betraying a trust (0: of something entrusted to him, such as a deposit for safekeeping), or appropriating something by disavowal (A: i.e. denying that the victim loaned or entrusted him with such and such a thing), (0: because of the Prophet's (Allah bless him and give him peace) saying, "There is no amputation for someone who seizes by force, snatches and runs, or betrays a trust," a hadith Tirmidhi classified as rigorously authenticated (sahih». (A: But if one of the above mentioned persons is a repeated offender whom it is in the interests of society to kill, the caliph may kill him.)

Leave Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.