Weekend Monkey: Answers to `You're the Qadi!'

Whaddup, Primates!

Here are the correct answers to our quiz, Let's play `You're the Qadi!'


Now, as I said, a Qadi is an Islamic judge versed in sharia Islamic law and we had two of the best, Ibn-Habish and Ali Boobah come up with the questions and answers, exclusively for the Real Banana - so let's have a shout out for these fun loving Jihadis of Jurisprudence who were such good sports:

























Remember, these are all real cases with actual rulings based on sharia, and the object was to pick the answer you thought was most correct according to sharia.

So let's see the answers!

1) Omar and Aminah are the son and daughter of the recently deceased Ali, who left an estate valued at $75,000 dinars. Ali left no will, and they are arguing over the split. What's yer ruling?

a) Fifty/fifty - no way, infidel

b) 1/3 to the court, 1/3 to each heir -kinky, and both the Qadis loved it, but not sharia.

c) Omar gets it all - lots of you picked this but no.

d) Omar gets 75%. Aminah gets 25%- the right answer! (Qu'ran 4.11)Though if Aminah is married, the money normally becomes her husbands' property. Just like Aminah.



2) Omar (also known as `Lefty' because of a previous conviction) is accused by Joseph, a Christian, of stealing from his store. Joseph claims he caught Omar leaving the shop with Joseph's merchandise in his pocket, and Ali, another Christian was a witness. What's yer ruling?


a) Omar is guilty and will have to figure out a new strategy for picking his nose and wiping his bottom. - OK, most of you realized this wasn't sharia.

b) There's no case. - the best answer, since there's no proof. Infidels can't testify in a sharia court before a Qadi, أبله!


c) Joseph and Ali are sentenced to fifty lashes each for defaming a Muslim.

unlikely, but it has been known to happen, depending on whether the Qadi is in a foul mood. 1/2 a point if you picked this.


d) Omar is guilty, but because the theft was from a Christian he is only sentenced to fifty lashes rather than another amputation. Allah is compassionate. - huh uh. Like I said, no evidence, no case!


3) Jihad al-Tahami sent his wife Alia a text message over her cell phone saying `I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee' locked her out of the house and is refusing to let her see the kids. She has come to you for legal redress. What's yer ruling?


a) the divorce is not legal, Alia is entitled to access to her children, and the couple must undergo counseling with an imam and come before the Qadi again before the divorce can be legal. -

WRONG! What do you think this is, Dr. Phil or something?

b) The divorce is legal, but Alia is entitled to see her children and take her property out of the house. -

Nope. The kids and any property the woman brings to the marriage remain the husbands', except her original dowry - IF she can somehow prove that she hasn't already given up the moolah to her Islamic Mac Daddy, which is almost impossible. That's why a number of American women who have married Iranians, Saudis and other Arabs and had kids have lost all access to them in the event of escape/divorce.


c) Jihad and Alia must both come before the Qadi for a ruling for the divorce to be legal.

No...the Qadi is not a family counselor, infidel. What were you thinking?

d) The divorce is legal, and Alia needs to stop wasting the Qadi's time and get on with life. - The right answer. The high religious court in Saudi Arabia has approved text messages as a legal, Qu'rannic notification of divorce. Ibn Habish had a very funny story he told me about the time that he had to disallow one of these because the motard only sent two text messages instead of the required three..ما الذي نكتة!!


4) Some local Christians were doing a badly needed repair on their church, and a board fell off the building. Omar claims the board hit him and he was injured, even though no one but Omar saw this happen and there are no bruises, cuts or marks on Omar. What's yer ruling?


a) Omar has no proof the board hit him, since no one saw it and he has no obvious injuries...so no case. - not quite, kaffur.

b) Omar is entitled to damages - maybe..but by itself, not the right answer.

c) You call the head of the church into court and ask to see proof that the repairs were permitted, and base your ruling on his answer. - the right answer! According to sharia any repairs to a church or synagogue are de facto illegal without permission from the Emir, Kalifa or other ruling body.

If the Church had permission, the Qadi may then rule on the rightness of the claim. If there was no permission, the Church is de facto guilty and penalties may apply for the non-permitted repair..but not necessarily for any damages to Omar.

d) The head of the church is imprisoned for assaulting a Muslim. And the church must pay damages to Omar.

- not really correct, infidels! The Qadi would rule based on `c'.


5) Mumtaz, a young Muslim woman, claims she was raped by Ibrahim, a married Muslim man. Maryam, her sister claims she saw Ibrahim running from the scene of the crime right after it occurred. Ibrahim claims he was nowhere near Mumtaz. What's yer ruling?

a) This is a situation that would most likely never come before the Qadi - this was a trick question, as `a' is the right answer in the real world. Mumtaz's family would likely perform an honor killing on her if she made something like this public. Not to mention the fact that Mumtaz would be an admitted adulteress, since Ibrahim is married. A teenage girl in Iran got hung
for this one! Although it was for killing her attempted rapist (`murder') rather than for adultery..she would have been stoned if it was just adultery.


b) You decree that, since it is likely that Ibrahim did in fact rape Mumtaz, they must marry to preserve Islamic justice and order. Just to make sure, you have Ibrahim `interrogated' to get to the truth, as the law allows. - this has happened when unmarried people are caught in illicit sexual relations, but not in a case like this.

c) There is insufficient evidence for a ruling. - Nope. TWO Muslim women presented evidence and womens' testimony has half the weight of a Muslim man. And thus they are equivalent to the required four Muslim males ( an adaptation of Quran 24: 4) Had it been just one, than `c' would have been the correct answer.


d) Ibrahim must pay damages to Mumtaz's family. - half credit if you picked this, as the Qadi might rule this way if it actually got into Court. Of course, damages could be blood money, livestock or the court ordered rape of a female relative of Ibrahim's by the males of Mumtaz's clan. The last one is fairly common in places like Pakistan. Allah in his wisdom provides for these situations.


6) Isaac, a Jew, comes before the court claiming he was assaulted and robbed by Mohammed, a Muslim. There was a Muslim policeman who witnessed the crime and has testified to the court that he saw the crime take place. He also testifies that at the time of the crime, he saw Isaac dressed in ordinary clothing. What's yer ruling?


a) Mohammed loses a hand as a warning those who would disturb the Peace of Islam. - nope..not the right answer by itself.


b) Because Isaac is a Jew, Mohammed is let off with a mere fifty lashes and must return what he stole to Isaac. - uh uh. Theft is theft, and it was witnessed by a Muslim male who gave evidence in court.


c) Mohammed is imprisoned -possible, but not the best answer according to sharia, since it does not account for Isaac's transgression.


d) Mohammed loses a hand as a thief. And Isaac is sentenced to one hundred lashes because he was not dressed in the distinctive clothing denoting that he was a Jew. Allah's justice is served.

- the sharia-licious answer. Mohammed was in fact a thief and Isaac committed the offense of not wearing the sharia mandated clothing and/or badges denoted that he was a Jew. Hey,where do you think Hitler got the idea? Allah's justice is served indeed.



7) Ali, a Christian, comes to you for justice. He claims that his young virgin daughter Sarai was forcibly kidnapped off the street by a group of Muslim youths, held against her will and assaulted until she agreed to become a Muslima and marry the ringleader. Yakub, the head of the gang , tells you that Sarai came there of her own free will, has converted to Islam and is now one of his wives. An imam has confirmed that Sarai did indeed recite the shaheedah (`there is no G-d but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet') in his presence.

Ali asks that you bring Sarai into court to hear her side of this, and complains that Sarai has not been permitted to see her family since she was kidnapped. Ali also quotes the Qu'rannic verse to you about there being no compulsion in religion. What do you say, Qadi?


a) You bring Sarai into court to hear her testimony, and will base your final ruling on that. - No. She's legally a Muslim and now the property of Yakub.



b) The marriage and the conversion to Islam must stand, but you tell Yakub that she must be permitted to see her family. - The Qadi cannot and would not order a Muslim man to permit this. Next, you'll be saying we ought to let them drive cars and go out by themselves!



c) You rule that the marriage and conversion are perfectly legal and will stand and that nothing Sarai would say would have any bearing on the matter. As a matter of fact, Ali should be proud that his daughter has now embraced the true faith. What's more, Sarai must have her husband's permission to have any contact with her Christian family. And you issue a stern rebuke t0 Ali for wasting the court's time and for presuming to quote the Holy Qu'ran to you, an Islamic scholar and tell him that it is only by the mercy of Allah that you do not order him whipped. - The Sharia-licious answer...bask in the glory of Allah's Law as revealed by this Egyptian case!



8) Eva is a ferenghi (foreigner)who accepted a ride home from a nightclub from two Muslim men. She went to the police and charged the two men with rape, claiming they pulled the car into a remote street and forced her to have sex with them. Her clothes and physical condition bear this out.The two Muslim men, one of whom is married, admitted taking her in their car from the club and admitted having sex with her, but claim that it was consensual. What's yer ruling, Qadi?

a) In view of the victim's physical condition, the sex was obviously not `consensual.' The two men will `interrogated' as the law allows and be punished for rape and battery after their confession. - Nope.

b) Since the woman is a non-Muslim, her testimony cannot be admissible in a sharia court. Case dismissed! - True, but not the answer that applies here

c) Since the woman is a foreigner and got into the car willingly , the men will not be punished for rape as such but will pay monetary damages for `assault'. - uh-uh.

d) This woman has admitted having sex with a married man out of her own mouth. She is an adulteress and will be imprisoned and suffer the traditional punishment of stoning as an example to others, ya Allah! - The sharia answer! This was a real case in Qatar, and the French woman involved was only extricated after her government exerted diplomatic pressure, and/or paid a bribe.

9)Mohammed is brought before you, charged with assault for knocking a Jew off a horse without any apparent provocation. Several witnesses saw this occur. Mohammed claims he is innocent of any crime. What's yer ruling?

a) Mohammed is guilty - witnesses saw the crime and he will be punished with fifty lashes. - nope. See below.

b) Mohammed is guilty and will have to pay money to the Jew for damages. uhhh-nope!

c) Mohammed is innocent under sharia. -the right answer, praise Allah! The Jew was on a horse and thus his head was higher than a Muslims'. Mohammed is to be commended for his piety and respect for sharia and the Qadi's authority.

d) Mohammed will not be punished for assaulting a Jew, but will be lashed for lying to a Qadi. - Mohammed told the truth to the Qadi - he was innocent of any crime.


10)Abdul borrowed money from Achmed to go on the haj (pilgrimage to Mecca) and promised Hamid that he would repay the money within a month of his return, plus give him a color TV from his shop as a bonus. Witnesses have confirmed the agreement. Abdul returned the money as scheduled but refuses to give Achmed the TV. Achmed wants the TV as promised or the cash equivalent. What do you say, Qadi?


a) Abdul must comply. A deal's a deal. - no...this was not legal according to sharia.


b) As Qadi, you rule that the men must arbitrate their differences, come to an agreement and appear before you in 10 days' time..when you will hear what they have agreed on and give your ruling. - not the right answer here.


c) Achmed has committed an offense under sharia, and will pay a fine to the court. - Behold the wisdom of Allah! The Qadi in this case realized that the promised TV amounted to interest on the debt, and thus Achmed was guilty of the crime of usury( Qu'ran 3:13).


Well, there it is, Primates! Score yourself:

0 - 5 - Infidel dog, incapable of higher understanding

6-7 - You show some understanding, but need much instruction in the ways of Allah

8-10 - Ya Allah! Want to fill in for ibn-Habish or Ali Booba in court sometime?


I'll announce the results and the prize to the winner next week!