[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

Nov. 3



UNITED ARAB EMIRATES:

'Blood money' likely to save Punjabi youths in Abu Dhabi from death penalty


11 Punjabi youths, lodged in Abu Dhabi jail for allegedly murdering a 
Pakistani, could evade capital punishment as their families had agreed to pay 
"blood money" to the victim's kin.

The accused, including 3 Pakistani youths, facing trial in Abu Dhabi, were 
arrested on charges of killing their Pakistani co-worker in a tussle on Diwali 
day in November last year.

S P S Oberoi, managing trustee of Dubai-based Sarbat Da Bhala Trust, who had 
saved 17 Indians from capital punishment in 2010 in a similar case by paying 
the blood money, told TOI that families of the accused had agreed to pay the 
money and they had already collected a part of the required amount.

The families had met Oberoi in Patiala last week.

"Father of the victim is in touch with Sarbat Da Bhala Trust and he had agreed 
to settle the case through blood money, which is the option as per Sharia law 
of the country. About Rs 45 lakh is required. Families of the Indians have 
collected around Rs 20 lakh, whereas 3 Pakistani families collected Rs 10 
lakh," Oberoi told TOI from Dubai.

"The balance amount would be paid by the trust. We have also arranged lawyers 
to fight the case. It's not that the youths would be free after payment of 
blood money, but that would help in decreasing the quantum of sentence. It will 
save them from capital punishment," added Oberoi.

The Punjabi youths hail from Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Jalandhar, Tarn Taran 
and Amrtisar districts of Punjab.

(source: The Times of India)






INDIA:

Minister favours death penalty for rapists


In the wake of increased sexual assaults on girl children, Woman and Child 
Welfare Minister Umashree has favoured death penalty for rapists.

She decided to write to the Centre recommending necessary amendments in the law 
for awarding death penalty for those indulged in rape cases.

Ms. Umashreee, who inaugurated a conference of women Self Help Groups (SHGs) on 
Monday, said that delegations from various segments of the society, especially 
student bodies such as ABVP, have been making a strong demand for stringent 
laws to deal with rapists. "I too feel their demand is fair."

"It is time we do whatever is necessary to instil a sense of fear to prevent 
rapes. People with perverted minds who commit sexual assaults on even small 
kids should be sent to gallows without any mercy," she told presspersons.

Several women organisations and the general public have been demanding 
stringent laws. "I want to convey this demand to Union Government and exert 
pressure from the state government to bring amendments to the law with 
provision for death penalty as the mandatory punishment for rapists", the 
minister said.

(source: The Hindu)






BANGLADESH:

Tribunal awards death to another politician


Another top leader of Bangladesh's main Islamist party was sentenced to death 
for war crimes Sunday just days after a tribunal awarded the same penalty to 
the chief of the organization.

The International Crimes Tribunal, which is a domestic court, convicted 
Jamaat-e-Islami's Mir Quasem Ali on eight of 14 charges he faced.

Ali was accused of mass murder, abduction, confinement and torture in the war 
that led to Bangladesh's independence from Pakistan in 1971.

He is considered the top financier and one of the most influential leaders of 
the party.

The Jamaat-e-Islami is already on strike in Bangladesh in protest against the 
death sentence handed down to its party chief Motiur Rahman Nizami on October 
29.

The 48 hour-long strike came into effect Sunday and was expected to remain in 
place until Monday.

Jamaat's leader Mujibur Rahman had warned of another series of nationwide 
strikes at a rally in Natore Saturday. The party has now called for a 
nationwide strike Thursday.

Other leaders convicted for war crimes include Abdul Qader Molla, who was 
executed in December 2013. Delwar Hossain Sayeedi was also awarded death, but 
his sentence was later converted to life imprisonment.

The International Crimes Tribunal was established in 2009 to investigate war 
crimes committed in 1971. Bangladesh's opposition parties and international 
organizations such as the Human Rights Watch have criticized the process and 
expressed concerns about the accused not getting a fair trial.

(source: Turkish Weekly)

********************

Death for war criminal Kamaruzzaman -- He has been sentenced to death by 
majority view under charge no 3 for Sohagpur mass killing


The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court has given death penalty to 
Jamaat-e-Islami leader and former al-Badr man Kamaruzzaman for committing 
crimes against humanity during the Liberation War of Bangladesh in 1971.

The 4-member Appellate Division bench headed by Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha 
pronounced the verdict in response to an appeal petition filed by Kamaruzzaman, 
challenging the verdict of the tribunal. 3 other judges of the bench are 
Justice Md Abdul Wahhab Miah, Justice Hasan Foez Siddique and Justice AHM 
Shamsuddin Choudhury.

The Appellate Division acquitted Kamaruzzaman for Badiuzzaman killing under 
charge 1. Earlier, he got life sentence for the charge.

The apex court upheld the tribunal verdict of charge no 2 and 7 by majority 
opinion. Kamaruzzaman was sentenced to death by majority opinion under charge 
no 3 for Sohagpur mass killing.

The top court gave life sentence to the Jamaat leader under charge no 4 for 
Golam Mostafa killing. Earlier, he was awarded death sentence by the tribunal 
for the charge.

On June 6 last year, Kamaruzzaman's lawyers filed an appeal petition, 
challenging the tribunal verdict. On concluding hearing on the appeal on 
September 17, the bench kept the appeal waiting for verdict.

Kamaruzzaman was an al-Badr leader in 1971. He was also a top leader of the 
greater Mymensingh Islami Chhatra Sangha, the then student wing of 
Jamaat-e-Islami, and was also the office secretary of East Pakistan Islami 
Chhatra Sangha.

The 2nd International Crimes Tribunal framed seven charges against him but the 
prosecution was able to prove 5.

On May 9 last year, the tribunal found him guilty of mass killing, murder, 
abduction, torture, rape, persecution, and abatement of torture in greater the 
Mymensingh area in 1971.

(source: Dhaka Tribune)

*****************

Split verdict, 1st time in tribunal


All 3 judges unanimously found Mir Quasem guilty on nine charges involving 
crimes against humanity but they were split over 1 charge, for the 1st time in 
the International Crimes Tribunals' history.

They delivered the verdict on charge 12, regarding the abduction, torture and 
the killing of Ranjeet Das and Tuntu Sen, based on majority views.

2 judges found Quasem guilty and sentenced him to death but 1 judge acquitted 
him.

The judges had unanimously sentenced Jamaat leader Mir Quasem Ali to 
imprisonment for different terms up to 20 years on 8 charges and awarded the 
death penalty on one charge, regarding the killing of a freedom fighter at an 
Al-Badr camp in Chittagong.

In defence of the acquittal under charge-12, Justice Md Mozibur Rahman Miah 
said the prosecution could not prove its case up to the hilt and thereby has 
utterly failed to discharge its "burden".

"Hence, Mir Quasem Ali is not found guilty of the offence of abduction, 
confinement, torture and murder ... ," stated Justice Mozibur, a member of 
Tribunal-2.

Tribunal-2 Chairman Justice Obaidul Hassan and member judge Justice Md Shahinur 
Islam found Quasem guilty and said, "By the act of being present at the AB's 
[Al-Badr] torture camp and behaving brutally with detained victims and 
providing 'moral support' and 'instigation' to the AB members inevitably formed 
part of attack which had substantial effect to the actual commission of the 
crime."

They went on to say, "Thus it can be legitimately concluded that the accused 
Mir Quasem Ali was 'concerned' in the commission of the criminal acts caused to 
the detainees forming chained system cruelties."

In the 10 war crimes verdicts delivered, the judges in both the tribunals had 
unanimously found the accused either guilty or not guilty on the charges 
against them. The Tribunal-2 had delivered 6 verdicts before.

However, on September 17, a bench of the Appellate Division of the Supreme 
Court was split while delivering the verdict on condemned war criminal Jamaat 
leader Delwar Hossain Sayedee's appeal.

Just like yesterday's verdict on charge-12, the Supreme Court verdict was based 
on majority views.

The 5-member bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Md Muzammel 
Hossain, commuted Sayedee's death penalty to imprisonment until death.

Of the judges, 3 gave Sayedee imprisonment until death, one acquitted him of 
all charges and the other upheld the capital punishment.

An apex court bench was also split while delivering the verdict on Jamaat 
leader Abdul Quader Mollah's appeal.

In the verdict, 4 judges upheld the death penalty for Mollah awarded by the 
tribunal while one judge commuted the death to life term imprisonment.

Quader Mollah was executed in December 2013.

(source: The Daily Star)






PAKISTAN:

Islam and the blasphemy law -- How can traditional Islamic law justify 
punishing blasphemy with death, given the lack of any mention of earthly 
punishment at all for this crime in the Quran?


A fairly common demand of conservative Muslim political parties is that the 
death penalty be implemented as punishment for blasphemy in accordance with 
sharia or Islamic law. It is therefore worth looking at the textual sources 
that are used to justify this law.

Interestingly, investigation reveals that there is no Quranic basis for any 
blasphemy law at all. Further investigation reveals that the blasphemy law 
arises from the secondary legal source of sunnah (or prophetic practice). 
However, the prophetic practice as described in the sirah (prophetic 
biographies) does not establish any death penalty for blasphemy. The sirah 
passages that might have provided a basis for the blasphemy law actually seem 
to be dealing with secular nationalist issues, namely treason during wartime. 
Finally, the relevant hadith (prophetic sayings) that advocate the blasphemy 
law may be the product of political tampering by the early caliphate during the 
post-prophetic wars of apostasy (rida). Even if the relevant hadith is 
reliable, justification of any blasphemy law in sharia through these religious 
sources may still be questioned.

To begin with, we can look at the Quranic position on blasphemy in the 
following verses. Blasphemy is indeed a serious offence against God but no 
earthly legal penalty is ever mentioned. Rather, the Quran emphasises that God 
will ultimately punish blasphemers, not any human law.

"Those who disbelieve and oppose the messenger after the guidance hath been 
manifested unto them, they hurt God not a jot, and He will make their actions 
fruitless. Those who disbelieve and turn from the way of God and then die 
disbelievers, God surely will not pardon them" (Qur'an 47:32, 34). This verse 
makes the point that God cannot be harmed even "a jot", the logical implication 
of which is that the blasphemy laws are not required for His protection. This 
is in keeping with the following verses that explicitly identify punishment for 
blasphemy and disbelief as being in the afterlife, with no mention of any 
earthly punishment. "God hath promised those who believe and do good works: 
theirs will be forgiveness and immense reward. And they who disbelieve and deny 
Our revelation, such are the rightful owners of Hell" (Qur'an 5:9, 10).

The Quran even tells the Prophet (PBUH) directly that it is foolish to expect 
everyone to follow him, as only God knows who will find guidance and humans, 
including messengers of God, have no ability to control this. "They indeed are 
losers who deny their meeting with God until, when the hour cometh on them 
suddenly, they cry. Alas for us, that we neglected it!...We know how well their 
talk grieveth thee, though in truth they deny not thee, but the evil-doers 
flout the revelations of Allah. Messengers indeed have been denied before thee, 
and they were patient under the denial and the persecution till Our succour 
reached them. There is none to alter the decisions of God...And if their 
aversion is grievous unto thee, then, if thou canst, seek a way down into the 
earth or a ladder unto the sky that thou mayst bring unto them a portent...If 
God willed, He could have brought them all together to the guidance - so be 
thou not among the foolish ones" (Qur'an 6:31-35).

How can traditional Islamic law justify punishing blasphemy with death, given 
the lack of any mention of earthly punishment at all for this crime in the 
Quran? The answer is that traditional Islamic law is not derived only from the 
Quran but also from the sunnah, as is established by the hadith. A narrative of 
prophetic actions, and hence of sunnah, can also be derived from the sirah. So, 
these additional sources have to be considered. When we look at the prophetic 
practice as recounted in the sirah biographies, we do find a precedent that may 
initially seem to support the death penalty for blasphemy. This is the killing 
of Ka'b ibn al Ashraf, a Medinan who composed poetry opposing the Muslims. 
After the battle of Badr, Ka'b recited verses praising the Meccan Qureish whom 
the Muslims had slain and mocking the Muslim victors. He was slain by Muslims 
acting according to the Prophet's (PBUH) instructions: "The apostle said 
...'Who will rid me of Ibn al Ashraf?' Muhammad ibn Maslama said, 'I will deal 
with him for you, O apostle of God, I will kill him.' He said, 'Do so if you 
can'" (The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, 
page 367, by Alfred Guillaume).

On the face of it, this seemingly justifies the death penalty for speaking 
against the Prophet (PBUH). However, blasphemy implies a religious offence. A 
significant fact about Ka'b ibn al Ashraf is that his opposition to Muhammad 
was not religious in nature. Rather, he was a political opponent of the Muslim 
community of Medina. In spite of being a Medinan, and nominally at peace with 
the Muslims living there, Ka'b publicly allied himself with the Qureish, who 
had not only expelled the Muslims from Mecca but were still in a state of war 
with them. So, technically, this killing was not for blasphemy at all, but 
treason during wartime.

A 2nd incident that throws light on the secular nature of the execution of Ka'b 
ibn al Ashraf is the punishment of the Medinan tribe of Banu Qurayzah. The Banu 
Qurayzah were punished after the "battle of the ditch", when the Muslims of 
Medina protected themselves from the attacking Meccans by digging a protective 
trench around the city. During the battle, the Banu Qurayzah allied themselves 
with the Qureish. As a result, after the Meccans had been repelled, the Muslims 
besieged the Banu Qurayzah. The Banu Qurayzah surrendered on the condition that 
their fate be decided by a Muslim, Saad ibn Muadh, from whom they expected 
leniency. However, Saad gave the decision that all the men of Banu Qurayzah 
should be killed, their property seized and their women and children enslaved. 
The execution of the men of Banu Qurayzah was obviously for treason, not 
blasphemy, as unlike Ka'b they did not speak publicly against the Muslims.

The fact that the death penalty was used against both Banu Qurayzah and Ka'b 
ibn al Ashraf in similar circumstances points to the fact that their crime was 
the same. It is a fair generalisation that most states, including modern nation 
states, have maintained laws advocating the death penalty for treason, 
especially during war; the Medinan state of the Prophet (PBUH) was no 
exception. Thus, these two cases taken together do not provide any basis for 
establishing the death penalty as a punishment for blasphemy. So far, it seems 
that there is support for the death penalty as punishment for blasphemy neither 
in the Quran, nor in the sunnah as mentioned in the prophetic biographies. The 
only remaining possible source for the blasphemy law is the hadith. In fact, 
there are hadith reports supporting the death penalty for blasphemy, such as 
the following attributed to Ibn Abbas, one of the companions of the Prophet 
(PBUH): "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him" (Sahih al-Bukhari).

Here we see that the position of the hadith is remarkably different from the 
Quran, in that this hadith report does explicitly advocate the death penalty 
for apostasy. It should be noted that apostasy is not exactly the same as 
blasphemy, as blasphemy usually implies publicly insulting religion, while 
apostasy can take the form of a purely private renunciation of religion, in 
which case it would not be blasphemy. However, a Muslim committing blasphemy in 
public may be legally judged to have become an apostate, and so the two 
offenses become related. Thus, hadith reports such as the above become the 
legal justification for the death penalty for both apostasy and blasphemy in 
traditional Islamic law.

(To be continued)

(source: Zeeshan Hasan; The writer holds a Master of Theological Studies degree 
from Harvard Divinity School in the US. His other writings about religion can 
be found at his website, www.liberalislam.net----Daily Times)