Islamic Law

The three cases were the subject of international and local attention that focused on the Saudi Arabian judicial system, whose cornerstone is Islamic law, or sharia. Many other Muslim countries also draw their laws from sharia. According to recent data, 1.6 billion people practice Islam, making the religion the second largest in the world.^{Footnote 8} However, the teachings of sharia remain unfamiliar to many non-Muslims.

Constituting one of the oldest legal systems in the world, Islamic law can be characterized as having two components: sharia, which means “the right path” and is considered the product of divine intervention, and fiqh, which means “deep comprehension,” a secondary element that is the product of human understanding and reasoning and is thus subject to human error. As such, it does not command the same authority as sharia.^{Footnote 9}

Sharia is a set of guidelines believed by Muslims to represent divine law as it was revealed in the Quran, the holy book of Islam held to be the word of God, and the Sunnah, the teachings and sayings of the Prophet Mohammad, Peace Be upon Him (PBUH).^{Footnote 10} Sharia is primarily concerned with the individual’s personal religious obligations, including duties to others in the community, and does not directly address subjects such as criminal law or government policy.^{Footnote 11} Rather, sharia offers only general guidelines, leaving it to religious scholars to draw specific rulings under the practice of fiqh.^{Footnote 12} Sharia can be thought of as encompassing fiqh, because it contains the overarching principles and values from which fiqh extracts practical manifestations and interpretations.^{Footnote 13}Fiqh, or Islamic jurisprudence, translates the rituals and morals that first appeared in sharia into social legislation.

The Evolution of Sharia into Established Law

In order to understand sharia in Saudi Arabia today, it is important to have some familiarity with the country’s history. After winning a multiyear war to rule the Arabian Peninsula in 1932, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud became the first king of the newly founded Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.^{Footnote 14} In order to ensure national unity, the king sought to bring together the different, and often feuding, tribes of the kingdom and to find common ground among them. He established sharia as the foundation of the new kingdom, in hope that a shared religious value would dispel current or future conflict among his people.^{Footnote 15} An official state constitution based on sharia was established decades later.^{Footnote 16}

In 1992, Abdul-Aziz’s son Fahad, who was then king, issued a royal order, the Basic System of Governance, in which he reaffirmed sharia as the foundation of Saudi Arabia’s constitution, through which all regulations in the kingdom are to be governed.^{Footnote 17} The order also established three branches of government: the regulatory, the executive, and the judicial branches. Sharia principles constitute the first branch, which is distinctly referred to as regulatory and not legislative, reflecting the state’s conviction that its legislation is acquired from divine teachings.^{Footnote 18} It is the responsibility of this branch to ensure that government policy corresponds with the teachings of sharia.^{Footnote 19}

The executive branch of government is headed by the king and overseen by his council of ministers. This branch holds the highest authority in the kingdom.^{Footnote 20} The judicial branch encompasses the country’s court system, which is made up of a high court based in the capital, Riyadh; a lower court of appeals; and several first-degree courts for matters such as labor, commercial, and criminal cases. The criminal courts are further divided into qisas, hudud, tazir, and juvenile courts.^{Footnote 21} Saudi Arabia’s criminal procedure code, introduced in 2001, encourages the application of Islamic law in court rulings.^{Footnote 22} It mainly focuses on procedure and process and does not specifically identify offenses or penalties.^{Footnote 23} Instead Saudi judges exercise their own judgment and understanding of fiqh when reaching a ruling.^{Footnote 24}

Sharia and Physician-Assisted Corporal Punishment

Judicial corporal punishment is a long-standing worldwide phenomenon that is sometimes justified in terms of redemption and rehabilitation of offenders or, in another instance, as deserved retribution for the committed transgression.^{Footnote 25} Neither of these reasons for inflicting corporal punishment includes torture.

Human rights campaigners argue that the sentences handed down to the blogger and the paralysis cases did, in fact, constitute torture and were, therefore, in opposition to Saudi Arabia’s international and legal commitments^{Footnote 26,Footnote 27} and membership in the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). In 1982, the UNHRC adopted a resolution declaring it to be a “gross contravention of medical ethics,” as well as an offense under international law, for medical professionals to participate in any act of torture or inhuman punishment, including assessing prisoners’ health to withstand such punishments.^{Footnote 28}

Most recently, the blogger’s case has been the subject of much discussion within Saudi Arabia. Some legal analysts and academic scholars have called for reforms of the country’s current judicial system and the establishment of a penal code.^{Footnote 29} Members of the Saudi public have also made their opinions known, with many voicing their support for the blogger on social media.^{Footnote 30} Inside the country, the debate centers on whether similar punishments were in accord with sharia teachings. If not, the public holds the view that the participation of medical professionals in carrying out these sentences cannot be ethically justified.

Code of Ethics for Physicians in Saudi Arabia

The regulatory Saudi Commission for Health Specialties (SCFHS) does not bring clarity to the issue. Saudi Arabian medical schools produce around 16,500 graduates every year.^{Footnote 31} A vast majority enroll in local residency programs, whereas a smaller number pursue training outside Saudi Arabia. The SCFHS, established in 1992, oversees and regulates postgraduate medical residency programs and teaching hospitals and is also responsible for setting the standards for healthcare practice, including the supervision of more than 80,500 doctors working throughout the country.^{Footnote 32} More than 60% of those doctors work in government-run sectors, including prisons and Ministry of Health hospitals.

The SCFHS also maintains and publishes a code of ethics manual, entitled Code of Ethics for Healthcare Practitioners, as a reference for healthcare professionals in Saudi Arabia. The code is directed at all medical professionals in the country but primarily addresses the obligations of physicians. In its 2014 edition, it outlines specific and clear guidelines for healthcare providers on many matters, including the importance of good manners, confidentiality, and respect.^{Footnote 33} However, on the issue of physician participation in judicial punishments, its stance is, unfortunately, less clear. Initially, the code states:

The code goes on to make an exception “for what was approved by the Islamic sharia, and with a ruling from the religious judiciary.” The SCFHS statements are confusing. Although the code begins by prohibiting doctors from participating in acts of torture against any person, whether accused or convicted, it then allows involvement if the conviction was achieved by a religious judicial ruling. Given the fact that sharia informs every judicial ruling, all convictions are considered religious judicial rulings. When understood that way, it would appear that the authors of the SCFHS manual are sanctioning the participation of physicians in judicial corporal punishments.

In addition to the SCFHS, there are several other medical associations and societies in Saudi Arabia. These much smaller organizations are more specialized and, unlike the SCFHS, do not have licensing or training authority. They do, however, conduct many educational efforts, including the organization of conferences and publication of medical journals. Despite large memberships, few of these organizations have their own codes of ethics, and none address the participation of their members in judicial punishments.

Beyond its borders, Saudi Arabia is a member of several international medical associations, including the World Health Organization,^{Footnote 34} and many Saudi medical schools and residency training programs have acquired international accreditation and affiliation. This makes Saudi Arabia an active member of the international medical community, which renders the silence of its medical organizations and the confusing nature of the SCFHS’s position on physician participation in state-sanctioned corporal punishment not only surprising but also in stark contrast to the opinion of the World Medical Association (WMA). In its declaration of Tokyo, first signed in 1975, the WMA firmly condemns physician participation in torture or any other cruel or inhuman procedure, regardless of the offense the victim is accused of and whether or not the victim is found guilty. The declaration strongly forbids the physician from providing any assistance including premises, instruments, substances, or knowledge, and from being present during any procedure that results in degrading or inhuman treatment. The WMA also promises its support to any physicians and their families who refuse to take part in these acts and encourages other medical associations to do the same.^{Footnote 35}

Given that Saudi Arabia is a strong contributor to the international medical community, it would follow that Saudi medical associations should also take a firm stance against physician participation in harmful judicial punishments and should prohibit Saudi doctors from participating in carrying out these sentences.

Changing Perceptions and Professional Roles

Saudi medical students are instructed in a Western style of medicine, and many go on to receive training in North American or European countries. They gain exposure to universal, and traditionally Western, ethical principles and adopt those values as their own guiding principles. Physician involvement in state-sanctioned corporal punishment is in direct conflict with those values. The principle of nonmaleficence, for example, the use of one’s medical knowledge and skills to intentionally inflict injury, would be a violation of the Hippocratic oath, which promises from the outset to “do no harm.”

Another ethical consideration is the changing role of the medical profession. In helping to carry out these sentences, rather than acting in the best interests of the patient, physicians can be viewed as acting as an extension of the government, with resulting loss of public trust. Although the medical community acts at times in collaboration with government agencies with regard to reporting infectious disease outbreaks or the involuntary quarantining of infected individuals,^{Footnote 36} there is an important distinction. In these situations, actions were taken to achieve a public health benefit for the larger community. Physician participation in corporal punishments achieves no such benefit and should not, therefore, be a function of the medical profession. Furthermore, because sentences such as flogging or forced paralysis are not considered medically indicated treatments but rather judicial punishments, the medical profession should not have a role in their execution.

Internationally, some medical organizations have gone beyond simply condemning physician involvement in similar acts of torture. In Argentina, three doctors were symbolically censured by the Argentinean medical association for Hippocratic oath violations, and Uruguayan medical associations have maintained that military and civilian doctors must be held to the same ethical values, rendering torture impermissible under any circumstance.^{Footnote 37} In the United States, legislatures in the state of California passed a resolution that required medical boards to inform licensees that complicity with torture violates state law.^{Footnote 38} Many other medical associations impose fines, take back awards, or expel members for participating in torture.^{Footnote 39}

The arguments against physician participation in implementing judicial punishments extend to lethal injection executions and any acts that put medical knowledge and skills in the service of judicial systems that inflict harm with no intent to attain a public health benefit. In fact, because judicial sentences offer no medical or therapeutic benefit, it can be questioned whether the condemned individuals can even be considered patients, making physician involvement even more difficult to justify. In addition to conflicts of professionalism, it can be argued that, for Saudi physicians, their involvement in state-sanctioned corporal punishment is also a violation of Islamic bioethics.

Islamic Bioethics and Sharia

Islamic bioethics has a strong association with sharia, which contains the overarching morals and values of Islam. In fact, some scholars believe sharia and Islamic bioethics represent a continuum of law and ethics; any discussion of one necessarily invokes the other.^{Footnote 40} An important Islamic moral principle is ihsaan, which means “a living conscience and a mindfulness of God”; Muslims are taught to sense God in all their actions and to always behave as if they can see God watching.^{Footnote 41} Islam also places great value on the preservation of human life; the Quran likens the unjust taking of one life to the taking of all life, and the saving of one to the saving of all.^{Footnote 42} Islamic bioethics draws several values, including ihsaan and the importance of human life, directly from sharia, and the practice of Muslim doctors is guided by those standards. Islam considers the medical profession to be one of the noblest vocations and allots Muslim physicians high status.^{Footnote 43} With that, however, comes higher standards of practice. Whereas sharia instructs all followers of the faith to be honest, humble, tolerant, and compassionate; to strive to protect human life; and to feel God in all actions, Muslim physicians have an additional religious obligation to observe these values in their practice—so much so that some scholars believe that a Muslim physician has a duty to follow sharia and put its teachings ahead of any human laws or judgments.^{Footnote 44}

It is important to note that Islam does not include a class of clergy. Instead, the learned men of religion are referred to as ulama.^{Footnote 45} These religious scholars are often tasked with presenting a judgment on new and complex issues that have not been directly addressed in sharia. As medical innovation advances and more ethical dilemmas arise, the ulama strive to gather information, apply it to fundamental religious values, and present an opinion. Because Islam contains many different schools of thought, some judgments are often conflicting, and it is up to the individual to choose which to follow.^{Footnote 46} The ulama play an important role in helping doctors understand what is religiously appropriate, but the medical profession also has a significant part in ensuring the medical facts are properly presented and understood. This partnership is intended to ensure that an ethically appropriate ruling is reached, but it is still far from perfect.^{Footnote 47}

Islamic Bioethics and the Four Principles of Healthcare Ethics

Mohammad Al-Razi, a prominent Muslim doctor of the ninth century and one of the earliest contributors to modern medicine, took a great interest in ethics.^{Footnote 48} His book Akhlaq Al-Tabib (Ethics of the Physician) had a strong influence on medical practice at the time and is still one of the most well-regarded Arabic books on bioethics. Al-Razi’s contemporary and fellow physician Ishaq Al-Ruhawi wrote one of the most comprehensive books on Islamic bioethics: Adab Al-Tabib (Practical Ethics of the Physician).^{Footnote 49} Like Al-Razi, Al-Ruhawi relied heavily on the role of Islamic teachings in medical practice but also drew on the writings of Aristotle and Hippocrates. Through his writings, Al-Ruhawi illustrated that Islamic ethics overlaps greatly with universal medical ethics and the four main principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, and autonomy.

The concept of beneficence is apparent in all Islamic teachings; both the Quran and Sunnah repeatedly call on followers to do good by others and by their communities. A large emphasis is placed on nonmaleficence to the extent that preventing harm often takes precedence over a comparable benefit. “Do no harm, and be the cause of no harm” is a saying commonly attributed to Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), in which he urges his followers to ensure they are never the cause of anyone else’s injury or misfortune.^{Footnote 50} Medical students and young doctors are taught to weigh the potential harms of proposed treatment plans or surgical procedures against possible benefits, and to refrain from any medical practice that would result in undue burden for patients. Justice is also a fundamental value; Muslims are instructed to be fair in all their dealings and never to consider others as an end to a means only. Finally, because the Quran maintains that every human is responsible for his or her own actions, the concept of autonomy is considered an integral part of Islamic bioethics. Respect for personal choice and bodily integrity plays a major role.^{Footnote 51}

Islamic Bioethics, Policies, and State-Sanctioned Corporal Punishment

With its focus on the promotion of mercy and compassion and the preservation of human life, Islamic bioethics cannot be rightly understood to condone a physician’s participation in any act that would result in intentional injury without the goal of medical benefit. Although not directly addressed, in policy statements, physician participation in corporal punishment is not in congruence with any of the recommendations and guidelines adopted by both Islamic medical organizations and the local medical authority in Saudi Arabia.

In 1981, the first international conference of Islamic medicine endorsed the Islamic Code of Medical Ethics with the goal that it would serve as guidance to Muslim physicians.^{Footnote 52} It includes the Oath of the Muslim Doctor, which has been adopted and recited at graduation ceremonies at medical schools in Muslim countries.^{Footnote 53} The oath includes a vow “to strive in the pursuit of knowledge and [to harness] it for the benefit but not the harm of mankind.”^{Footnote 54} This statement clearly asserts that medical knowledge should only be used for beneficial gain and not for the intentional causation of injury. Saudi physicians who take this oath are vowing to adhere to its regulations, including the promise not to use their skills to inflict harm. That includes surgically paralyzing someone or medically clearing them to receive lashings.

Similarly, the SCFHS’s code of ethics outlines certain values—including fairness, kindness, empathy, and respect—that a Muslim physician should have. The manual also specifically calls on physicians to reduce patients’ physical and psychological suffering by any means necessary, and to be self-accountable for their actions. Doctors are instructed to obtain their patients’ informed consent before any procedure: “The human’s body and soul are from the person’s privacies” and should not be infringed on without prior permission, which must not be obtained under coercion. The manual also allows physicians to refrain from treating a patient for personal or professional reasons, provided this does not harm the patient. The commission’s manual contains a strong call for bodily respect, an integral component of the rights granted to an individual under sharia, and instructs doctors to relieve pain and suffering of any form. Both recommendations are directly in conflict with any role a physician would have in relation to corporal punishment, which not only results in physical and emotional harm but also involves an involuntary breach of an individual’s bodily integrity.

Social and Professional Conflicts

In addition to the regulations of the medical community, physicians are also subject to the rules of the society in which they live. As citizens of a country, they are obligated to follow its laws and abide by its regulations. A sentence that is permitted by law and ordered by a state’s judicial system can, all things being equal, be considered fair and just by citizens of that state. For that reason, physicians may well feel compelled to follow judicial rulings and participate in corporal punishment if it is state sanctioned. Additionally, doctors have an interest in preserving justice in their communities and may perceive a responsibility to be part of the practice that safeguards that justice if it is indeed approved by the state. Saudi physicians’ dual citizenship, as both medical community members and Saudi nationals, puts them in a seemingly difficult dilemma with conflicting obligations in regard to state-sanctioned corporal punishment. That need not necessarily be the case.

Because sharia forms the basis of the Saudi Arabian justice system, and sharia is thought to be grounded in the direct word of God, two things can be inferred: sharia must be absolutely observed, and sharia must also be inherently just. Under that standard, punishments for those few hudud crimes specifically mentioned and proscribed under sharia (e.g., murder and theft) are not open to interpretation or discussion, and strict obedience is required. Other transgressions, however—those whose prescribed punishments rely on the independent reasoning of (good-intentioned and well-learned) men—require more scrutiny. The three crimes discussed in this article fall under the latter category. All three sentences were reached through the process of fiqh. Because this method is potentially subject to error, the judgments attained should not be considered infallible.^{Footnote 55} Unlike the values delineated in Islamic bioethics, they do not represent an absolute part of sharia teachings. Thus Saudi physicians who choose to honor the values of Islamic bioethics and not take part in state-sanctioned corporal punishment can be seen to be upholding sharia and not violating its laws. In this situation, their obligations as medical professionals and Muslim doctors are aligned and are not in opposition. The further question of whether the plaintiffs in these cases should have been held legally accountable, although important, is beyond the scope of this article.

Islam afforded physicians a high moral status in Muslim societies, and that position comes with certain societal obligations. In the position presented here, under sharia, physicians have a duty not only to abstain from participation in state-sanctioned corporal punishment but also to ensure that the values of Islamic bioethics are upheld. Physicians should express their disagreement with assisting to implement any sentence that is in direct conflict with their obligations as medical professionals. It is not unprecedented that physician solidarity in objecting to such practices can actually result in their being halted. In Mauritania, for example, physicians refused to perform amputations on those convicted of theft, forcing the government to completely abolish the practice.^{Footnote 56}

Theft is considered a hudud crime, and, as such, its punishment is prescribed in sharia as hand amputation. Strict conditions must be met and a rigorous conviction process must be completed before the sentence can be passed.^{Footnote 57} Nevertheless, some physicians believe it is in direct violation of their medical profession to comply, in any form, with such a judicial punishment. However, administering to amputees postprocedure can still fall under the category of treatment that Saudi physicians could ethically justify. The Red Cross, for example, objects to limb amputation as punishment for theft and prohibits its physicians from taking part in the practice yet still continues to treat and provide care to amputees.^{Footnote 58} After the punishment has been carried out, the recipient becomes a patient like any other in need of medical care, and physicians have a duty to provide that care. This is a significant distinction that also has application in the blogger’s case, in which Saudi physicians were directed to evaluate him between lashing sessions. Their ethical obligation could allow them to provide aid and tend to the man’s wounds but would prevent them from proclaiming him ready and able to withstand further lashings.

If, as it is argued here, participation by Saudi physicians in state-sanctioned corporal punishment cannot be ethically justified under Islamic and universal bioethics, what actions should be taken to stop, or at least curtail, physician involvement in the future?

The Saudi Commission for Health Specialties

As the overseeing and sole licensing medical authority in Saudi Arabia, the SCFHS should provide a strong, clear, unified, and well-researched opinion on physician involvement in state-sanctioned corporal punishment, starting with a reevaluation of the conflicting statements in its current code of ethics. A national medical meeting sponsored by the SCFHS to debate the matter with participating professionals from medical, religious, and legal backgrounds would serve as a starting point to inform the debate. Additionally, a special task force or committee can be formed in order consider different issues and conflicting viewpoints before a recommendation can be reached. The SCFHS is urged to act in accord with international medical organizations such as the WMA and to come out strongly against physician participation in state-sanctioned corporal punishment and denounce those actions as torture, as they are viewed by the international medical community.^{Footnote 59} As the main educational and regulating medical organization in Saudi Arabia, the SCFHS has the power not only to influence the ethics culture of physicians throughout the country but to also hold physicians who violate the code of ethics responsible.

Before that can be accomplished, however, the SCFHS needs to offer safeguards and support for those who refuse to be a part of these sentences. Physicians who work in state or military hospitals or in prisons may well feel pressured to comply with requests to aid in carrying out judicial sentences or risk job loss or even prosecution themselves. The SCFHS should work to secure protections from such consequences through partnership and continued dialogue with the Ministry of Justice (MOJ). The SCFHS should also engage officials at the MOJ in conversation about the ethical concerns surrounding these sentences and should officially request that physicians no longer be enlisted to participate in state-sanctioned corporal punishment. Instead, if the MOJ continues to support judicial corporal punishments, it should employ specially trained nonmedical professionals and should establish a designated branch within the criminal justice system for carrying out such punishments. This would not be unprecedented: the MOJ already employs nonphysician executioners to carry out death sentences by beheading.^{Footnote 60}

Medical Schools and Training Programs

At the same time that the SCFHS is being asked to oppose physician participation in state-sanctioned corporal punishment on the grounds that involvement violates Islamic and universal ethical values, the Saudi Arabian medical teaching community must also do its part to ensure that those values are fully incorporated into medical education and understood by medical professionals. The field of bioethics in Saudi Arabia is still in its infancy. Much growth, cultivation, and education is needed before the core bioethics principles can be understood in broader terms and translated into all aspects of a medical professional’s practice. Traditionally, religious scholars have assumed the duties of ethical instruction in Saudi medical schools, limiting instruction to the “general virtues that Muslim doctors should hold,” such as kindness, good manners, and proper attire.^{Footnote 61} This model leaves out the fundamental theoretical basis of bioethics and the necessary critical thinking that is required in order for physicians in training to handle the inevitable dilemmas they will face throughout their careers.

There are additional challenges to be faced. Recently, as Saudi hospitals and universities look to achieve more medical advancement, attention has focused on the importance of formal bioethics education. This is not without challenges; few Saudi hospitals have established bioethics departments, little research on bioethics within the Saudi medical setting is available, and almost all of the staff currently teaching ethics are not fully immersed in the field.^{Footnote 62}

There is a strong desire among Saudi medical students for more bioethics exposure and instruction, and an agreement on the importance of medical ethics in daily practice.^{Footnote 63} Saudi medical schools are an ideal place to build strong bioethics foundations in Saudi doctors. As more young physicians are exposed to, and understand, the values of ethics, they not only will be able to apply them more confidently in their practice but also will find it easier to translate those beliefs outside the medical setting. With the proper tools and education, more physicians will be able to analyze morally fraught situations and arrive at ethically justifiable conclusions. Medical involvement in corporal punishments is one such ethically challenging situation that would benefit from better education. Armed with knowledge and understanding of the core ethical values, young doctors should be able to conclude that physician participation violates two basic ethical principles—autonomy and nonmaleficence—and as such cannot be ethically justified.

Specialty Societies

In addition to medical schools and training programs, Saudi Arabian medical associations and societies play a major role in shaping the ethical values of young doctors. Specialty-specific medical societies are an integral part of the residency experience. Medical residents make a significant monetary investment in order to become members of a medical society, through which they gain access to educational materials, journals, and conferences. None of the societies examined in the course of this research—including emergency medicine, surgery, family medicine, and internal medicine, all services directly concerned with the effects of corporal punishments—have an official code of ethics. Although these organizations have no licensing power and their membership is largely symbolic, a strong position on the role of physicians in corporal punishment would undoubtedly influence the views, and perhaps guide the actions, of their members.

The American Medical Association (AMA) offers a useful example of a medical society that has taken a firm position on torture. The AMA is not a licensing authority, its membership is voluntary, and its role is largely to provide guidance. Yet the AMA, in its Code of Medical Ethics, takes an unwavering stance on physician participation in torture, which it defines as “deliberate, systematic, or wanton administration of cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatments or punishments during imprisonment or detainment.” The code goes on to say, “Physicians must oppose and must not participate in torture for any reason. Participation in torture includes, but is not limited to, providing or withholding any services, substances, or knowledge to facilitate the practice of torture. Physicians must not be present when torture is used or threatened.” Finally, the AMA maintains that physicians must continue to uphold the principles of medical ethics when engaging in any activity that relies on their medical knowledge and skills.^{Footnote 64} Saudi medical societies might benefit from reflecting on the codes of ethics from other medical communities around the world to inform their own position and policy.

The Saudi Arabian Ministry of Health

The Saudi Arabian Ministry of Health also has a role and a responsibility in shaping this issue. An integral part of the ministry’s mission is to help educate and spread public awareness on multiple health-related issues. Research shows that corporal punishment has long-term negative physical and psychological effects on both prisoners and participants.^{Footnote 65} In addition to raising ethical concerns, physician participation is detrimental to the public’s perception of and trust in the medical profession. Education on the ethical issues communicated to the public in general and criminal court judges in particular could go a long way toward helping to put an end to physician participation in state-sanctioned corporal punishments. This could be especially significant in tazir crime courts, where judges have full discretion.

Medical Professionals and Civic Responsibilities

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, as a direct result of the high moral status granted to physicians in Islam, they have a major responsibility and role to play in the debate over state-sanctioned corporal punishment. Islamic societies consider the medical profession as one of the most noble and often depend on the medical community to help uphold societal values. As medical professionals practicing in an Islamic country, physicians have not only a duty to refrain from involvement in judicial corporal punishments but also a positive responsibility to actively help bring the practice to an end. Muslim physicians have an obligation to uphold the values of their profession and to ensure that the safety and integrity of their fellow citizens are respected, as well as a duty to stop ethically unjustifiable practices in their community at large.