Timeline for Are white-collar crimes punishable under sharia?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 9, 2017 at 2:40 | vote | accept | Rebecca J. Stones | ||
| Mar 31, 2017 at 16:03 | comment | added | G. Bach | I think expanding on that last comment (and adding which white collar crimes are already dealt with in the texts) would make a much better answer than what your answer is now. | |
| Mar 31, 2017 at 16:01 | comment | added | UmH♦ | @G.Bach The limits ordained by religion are that the caliph shouldn't prevent doing an obligatory religious duty, and he shouldn't permit any haram action ... obedience to him is obligatory unless he commands disobedience to Allah. If he wants to ban fizzy drinks in turquoise cups he can, and the muslims must obey him ... this has already been touched in this question. Islamqa's fatwa on copyright, depending on which specific cybercrime you have in mind I am sure you will find verdicts forbidding it. | |
| Mar 31, 2017 at 15:39 | comment | added | G. Bach | "a caliph has every right to impose prohibitions as he sees fit and can introduce punishments for violating them." This is why I mentioned fizzy drinks in turquoise cups, what are the limits to this? Cybercrime does not appear in the texts, nor does copyright infringement - these are far less immediate harm to someone's property, if at all, and it's not clear from your answer which scholars draw which lines for the caliph here. | |
| Mar 31, 2017 at 13:30 | history | edited | UmH♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 656 characters in body
|
| Mar 31, 2017 at 13:18 | comment | added | UmH♦ | @G.Bach The question is specifically about obvious offences against another person's property and not about a ban on fizzy drinks. With that said, a caliph has every right to impose prohibitions as he sees fit and can introduce punishments for violating them. For reference consider the caliphate of Umar, where he imposed strict austerity on his governors and had them punished and deposed for violating that. | |
| Mar 31, 2017 at 12:19 | comment | added | G. Bach | However, whatever behaviors are criminalized beyond what the texts say can probably only be tazir offenses; they could not be hadd since that requires textual evidence, and I doubt introducing new forms of qisas and diyya would be acceptable. | |
| Mar 31, 2017 at 12:16 | comment | added | G. Bach | As I understand it, "tazir" refers to "discretionary punishment for a crime", i.e. qadi is free to set the scale and nature of the punishment within boundaries. What it does not address as far as I can tell is "is this act a crime" or "can the government under sharia criminalize this sort of behavior". For traffic violations it seems accepted that the state can issue tazir punishments. Could the caliph make drinking fizzy water from a turquoise colored cup a tazir offense? I doubt it. The category of "tazir" is independent of "what can the state criminalize" as far as I can tell. | |
| Mar 31, 2017 at 12:00 | comment | added | UmH♦ | @G.Bach As per my understanding, Tazeer applies to punishment for an offence that does not fall under hadd or qisas. The way the prohibition of the act itself is derived is irrelevant, it can be derived from Qiyas or Ijmah, or simply the authority of a state. e.g Tazir for breaking traffic lights: islamqa.info/en/130222 | |
| Mar 31, 2017 at 11:10 | comment | added | G. Bach | The link says: "Tazir [..] refers to offense mentioned in the Quran or the Hadiths, but where neither the Quran nor the Hadiths specify a punishment." Does this mean things like copyright infringement, money laundering, etc., basically crimes that or not mentioned in the texts, cannot fall under tazir? | |
| Mar 31, 2017 at 10:36 | history | answered | UmH♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |