Hearing such a statement, citizens of the southern part of Sudan (most of whom are non-Muslims), who might still consider voting for unity with Sudanese in the north, would immediately decide to vote for a new separate state enforcing civil law rather than Islamic Sharia.
Al-Bashir's stand reveals that he was not serious when he cancelled enforcement of the Islamic law some years ago to convince public opinion of the ability of all Sudanese people to live in peace and unity without discrimination. The problem is compounded by his coupling this statement with his support for a scandalous videotape showing a police guard flogging a woman in the street for wearing trousers and not the traditional dress (the thoub). The dilemma lies in not losing credibility in front of the world and Sudanese public opinion in such a way that makes division of the country inevitable. The issue is that he is presenting the worst image of Islamic Sharia and giving evidence that non-Muslim Sudanese have the full right to seek their independent state apart from a regime that does not consider human rights and insults women in an appalling way. Al-Bashir's statement must have stirred anger of Muslim Sudanese people of the north, too, who fear the return of enforcing the laws (of bad repute) as launched by former President Gafar Numairi in 1983. These laws caused the enforcement of harsh punishment, such as cutting off hands and legs for trivial causes, which especially afflicted the poor. This explains when al-Bashir first announced cancellation of the Sharia laws for protecting the Sudanese plurality, why none of the northern Muslim citizens showed opposition to the decision. They believed that such laws have nothing to do with teachings of the tolerant religion of Islam that respects human life and dignity. It is true that cutting off the hands and legs as well as flogging are sanctions endorsed by Islamic Sharia, but for very specific and limited kinds of crimes, with the pure intention of minimising such crimes in Muslim society to the lowest possible level. Besides, this penalty (known in Islam as hadde) should be preceded by clear, confirmed evidence with no distinction between the rich and the poor. Accordingly, if a ruler applied these penalties to some criminals, but did not apply them to other criminals, belonging to influential or wealthy families, he would be a sinful person and would be violating the Islamic Sharia. It happened during the time of the Prophet Mohamed (PBUH) that a woman of a significant family was caught for robbery and she was supposed to have her hand cut off. Some people thought this act of punishment unacceptable because of the prestigious position of her family and wanted to ask the Prophet not to punish her. The Prophet, raging with anger, answered them: 'Great nations collapsed before us, which were not punishing the rich if any of them robbed someone, but if a poor person committed the same deed they were punished. In the name of Allah, if Fatima bent Mohamed (referring to his dearest daughter) stole, Mohamed would cut off her hand". This punishment has disappeared from most Muslim countries and has been replaced by some civil penalties such as imprisonment. The problem is that the flogging sanction continues to be applied in countries such as Sudan and Saudi Arabia and in a very cruel way. It is enforced for crimes other than those included in the Holy QurÕan or applied by the Prophet Mohamed and the four Caliphs who took over after him, that is for fornication, or sexually assaulting chaste woman or drinking wine. According to the basis of Islamic code, 'There is no crime, nor penalty but by a text [from the QurÕan or hadith (the Prophet's saying or tradition)]. So any code enforcing the flogging penalty for crimes other than those included in the Holy Qur'an or applied by the Prophet Mohamed should be considered an extremist regime transgressing Allah's bounds. Shamefully, these countries, that claim to be enforcing the Islamic Sharia, have come to regard flogging as a flexible punishment for any crime with no clear limits. For example, two Egyptian physicians received a court ruling of flogging by some 1,500 lashes for alleged faulty medical practice, which caused the addiction to some drugs of a female patient said to belong to a senior family in Saudi Arabia. After receiving around 180 lashes, the physicians were pardoned by King Abdallah and were sent home. This ruling raised anger and drew criticism in Egypt that considered it undervaluing the dignity of the Egyptians. However, no one seriously questioned if the prestigious Muslim Kingdom had wrongly enforced Islamic Sharia. Strangely, this kind of injustice was recently repeated with two young Saudi men, one of whom is the son of the famous Sheikh Ahmed ben Qasem al-Ghamdi. The sheikh is the head of Mecca's branch of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (known as the "religious police" in the Kingdom). Those two young men received the harsh punishment of 50 lashes each for fighting with each other. Instead of expressing anger at the incorrect enforcement of this penalty for a trivial fault or offence, the eminent Sheikh al-Ghamdi objected that his son was the victim and not the one who had started the fight! So does this imply that the punishment of flogging is applied for any wrongdoing and the number of lashes differs according to the deed of the offender? If this is the case, one shouldnÕt be surprised at seeing a Sudanese policeman flogging a woman for wearing trousers. It is no wonder that the Islamic Sharia has gained a bad reputation because of its wrong application at the hands of Muslim scholars and rulers in a country that houses the holy sites of Islam and was the birthplace of its Prophet. Nor it is surprising that the West opposes any talk about enforcing the Islamic Sharia by the Muslim communities living there. Additionally, it is no wonder that the West strongly supports the southern people of Sudan in being separated from the Muslim north and that any moderate Muslim country would prevent the consideration of Islamic Sharia a source for legislation of its constitution. Although I feel pain at the prospect of the division of Sudan into two states, it is still unacceptable for true Muslims to see a regime, even if it is Muslim, practising a kind of injustice against the non-Muslim citizens. This is particularly the case when, by so doing, it deprives them of their civil rights, services and utilities, as the case with the southern Sudanese people.
Dear readers are invited to contribute their comments, views and questions via 111-115 Ramsis St., Cairo or e-mail:
| 