Can KSA abolish capital punishment? 

(MENAFN - Arab News) The recent capital punishment meted out to a Sri Lankan housemaid has raked up a controversy in a section of the Western media. They are making false accusations against the Kingdom's criminal justice system.

There is nothing new in these accusations as human rights organizations have been calling for abolition of capital punishment. They have been making serious efforts to abolish the punishment by presenting a draft resolution at the UN General Assembly, as they believe that death penalty is a violation of human rights.

Saudi Arabia, however, will not be able to abolish capital punishment because the punishment is based on religious texts that cannot be overruled or ignored. I will explain this later.

The statement issued by the UN secretary-general on the issue looks strange and surprising as it was based on wrong information and unacceptable accusations that were not expected from an international personality who should deal with issues in a professional and intelligent manner without any prejudice. He should have made the statement after checking the facts relating to the issue and its correct details, without being influenced or pressured by the Western media. Selective criticism, politicization of such issues and targeting the Islamic Shariah have always been the policy followed by some human rights organizations and Western media institutions.

Also the statement issued by the spokesman of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights was not appropriate as the commissioner knows the concept of punishments in Shariah and the criminal system and procedures followed in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

In fact, I know the details of this issue from the very beginning because of my previous work as a lawyer and I would like to clarify some of the observations made about the case and its circumstances. The Saudi government's statement on the issue has made things very clear and made my job easy. The Saudi statement was lucid, firm and accurate, covering all aspects, especially on the age of the killer, the defense's role, and that the people who had the right to pardon the killer on the basis of Shariah are the parents of the slain child only and no one else.

The capital punishment in the West is totally different from the Qisas (requital) system in Islam. The latter is a divine and legal instruction that has been clearly and categorically mentioned in the religious text while the former is the creation of man that changes in accordance with circumstances and texts. So the call for abolishing capital punishment in Islam goes against the principles of international law that gives sovereign rights to every country to draft its criminal and judicial system on the basis of religious and cultural references and for preserving its security.

On the other hand, the call for abolition of capital punishment goes against the principles of protecting human rights. If we agree primarily that the freedom of faith is one of these rights, and as long as you believe in a faith on the basis of your conviction or desire, you should practice the teachings of that faith including its orders and prohibitions.

So, the issue becomes different considering the references. Consequently the conflict is between two different opinions because it determines the origin whether it is faith-based and thought-based of this culture or the other.

The Western mentality sees the need for separating religion and state (secularism) but Muslims believe it should not be separated, as the religion covers everything including state. In short, we can say that the divine reference (the Qur'anic text) is different from man-made laws or references.

The American laws, for example, are made by human beings while the Saudi laws are based on divine texts. Subsequently, the references of laws in the two countries are totally different, not to mention the mechanisms and circumstances.

In a country like the US, the jury can play a vital role in convicting an accused in a crime that demands capital punishment. At the same time, for sentencing a person for capital punishment in Saudi Arabia, his case must be studied by 13 judges; three in the General Court, then five in the Appeal Court and later five judges in the Supreme Judiciary Council. In the US, capital punishment is applied only in some states after Constitutional Court decided in 1973 to abolish the punishment, giving each state the freedom to take appropriate decisions, either to adopt or reject capital punishment. At the same time, Saudi Arabia is committed to implementing this punishment whenever the conditions are fulfilled.

I remember the statement of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah on the dialogue between different cultures, which he delivered at the United Nations. "All these rights and principles could be found in the depths of all civilizations and not be viewed in isolation of civilization that originated them and it is difficult to impose on an individual or society concepts rejected by their principles and morals."

At the same time, the West presents enlightening thoughts and this in principle is beautiful and acceptable. However, the problem occurs when it is not able to distinguish the quality of proposals with regard to Muslims or countries that apply the Shariah, to be specific.

When the proposal becomes something related to the faith, the result would be negative. The issue is not economic or political but it is much bigger than that and enters the heart of the self-conviction. The Saudis can sit with the Westerners to discuss all issues whether they agree or not but it will be impossible for them to discuss issues such as capital punishment prescribed in the Shariah.

The Western mind depends on the rationality of everything while the Islamic thought does not oppose this trend as long as it is not in contravention of the sanctity of the religious text. Muslims consider implementation of capital punishment as deepening the concept of justice while some people in the West believe that it is a violation of human rights.

The conflict here surrounds on the relative concept of justice and its application. One should return to the reference of this or that thought to remove the confusion. The difference here in my opinion is thought and faith based and misunderstanding and has nothing to do with human rights.