Religiosity in Islam as a Protective Mechanism against Criminal Temptation Ab&llah H. M. Al-Khalvah The goal of this paper is b examine the extent to which religiosity, within the Islamic context, can be viewed BS an effective mechanism against criminal temptation. To accomplish this, we will a) review the theories and literatwe concerning the religion-crime relationship, b) dis- cuss the meaning of the religiosity concept in order to highlight essential fea- of religiosity in Islam that make it a valuable force in crime con- trol within a Muslim society, and c) present a thorough discussion of cer- tain elements of Islamic ideology that conshin criminal behavior. Theoretical Antecedence The relation of religion to other social phenomena has received a great deal of attention from social scientists. Given the variations of the ideological and philosophical backgrounds underlying most schools of SQ- cia1 thought, theme is no single view of the impact of religion. For ex- ample, Ibn Khaldiin ([d. 14061 1981) views religion, through its effect on social cohesion and cooperation, as a primary factor in the rise and fall of Societies. Marx (Tucker 1978), in his analysis of capitalism, recog- nizes the importance of religion as a control mechanism and considers it an effective instNment utilized by the bourgeois dass to maintain its dominance over the proletariat. On the conttary, Weber (1958) views the entin= capitalist system as a by-product of Protestantism. But it is perhaps the functional theorists who highlight the i m p o w c e of religion on the creation and maintenance of social order. They consider religion to be the basis and source of social values and norms by which people are united and their behavior and activities are regulated murk- heim 1951). However, due to the increasingly secular nature of modem Abdullah H. M. A l - M i a h is an Bssociate professor of sociology, Imam Muhammad ibn Sad Islamic University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 1 1 : 1 societies, some social scientists assume that religion "would gradually diminish in importance or else become less capable of influencing public life" (Wuthnow 1988). According to Wuthnow (1988), "much of the re- search on religion was informed by the assumption that secularization was an inevitable trend." Recently, that assumption has been challenged (Douglas 1983; Stark et al. 1985). Within the criminological tradition, however, it has been the social control theorists who considered religion in their analysis of crime prevention. Social control theorists asked why and how people conform to the rules of society. That is, what are the mechanisms that constrain people from committing delinquent behavior? ( h h n 1991). The two Durkheiman concepts of social integration and social regulation are taken by social control theorists as a theoretical frame of reference to deal with these questions. Durkheim, in his classic Suicide, investigated the social conditions preventing people from committing suicide. To him, suicide is a function of weak social integration and social regulation. As society succeeds in integrating individuals into its social institutions (i.e., reli- gions and family) and providing them with cultural norms that regulate their behavior, their "insatiable desires" are controlled and the proper means to achieve these desires are defined. The result is that suicide rates, as well as other forms of delinquent behavior, decline. The concept of social integration and social regulations are not mutually exclusive in the Durkheiman sense. On the one hand, social integration is enhanced by rules of conduct that make social institutions more of a presence in peoples' consciousness. On the other hand, social regulation may be ef- fective, provided that there is a high degree of social integration. That is, people would have to feel attached to a group in order to follow volun- tarily its norms and rules (Krohn 1991). Social control theorists have used these two concepts in their exami- nation of crime control. There are, however, variations regarding their analytical treatment of one or both concepts. For example, social dis- organization theorists highlight the importance of social institutions in integrating and regulating individuals. Focussing their analysis on the community level, they see the overall social disorganization of a commu- nity as a function of the ineffectiveness of specific institutions. Lander (1954) and Maccoby et al. (1958) provide strong evidence to substantiate the assumptions of social disorganization theory. The social bond is another branch of social control theory that seeks to explain what makes people refrain from engaging in criminal behavior. The main features of the theory were specified by Nye (1958) and Hitschi (1969). For Nye (1958), delinquency results from the absence of control, which itself comes from the socialization pmess through which indi- viduals learn to distinguish right from wrong. Behavior, in this perspec- tive, is controlled indirectly by one's affectional ties to significant others Al-Khalifah Religiosity as a Protective Mechanism 3 (i.e., parents, friends) and directly by punishment. Himchi (1969) views social bonds, by which he means the ties that attach people to the con- ventional social order, 8s the factor underlying the confotmity of juveniles to the social order. Social bonds consist of four interrelated elements attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. The more effective ties people maintain with others (attachtnents), and the higher their desire to follow conformist behavior (commitments), they will spend more time in conventional activities (involvement) and stmgthen their attitude to- wads conformity (beliefs). In the remaining perspectives of social control, (i.e., self-concept theory, self-derogation theory, and the deterrence perspective), the unit of analysis of the control mechanism shifts from the social or aggregate to the psychological or individual level. For example, self-concept theorists see the prosocial self-concept as a mechanism that constrains an indi- vidual from engaging in delinquent behavior (Reckless 1961; 1973). The self-derogation theory, which follows the symbolic interaction assump tion, predicts that an individual will behave in a manner in which a nega- tive attitude (the result of nonconformist behavior) is minimized, while a positive attitude, which results from conformitive behavior, is maxi- mized (Kaplan 1980). The deterrence perspective, which is based on utilitarian assumptions, considers individuals to be rational actors who strive to maximize the benefits of their action and minimize the cosfs of their behavior. To deter people from committing crimes, therefore, they advocate the use of severe punishment as an effective instrument to con- trol crime. If the cost of the punishment outweighs the potential benefit of the criminal act, people eventually will be d e t e d from engaging in criminal behavior (Beccaria 1764, Tittle 1969; Waldo and Chiricas 1972). The impact of religion on crime has been the subject of many em- pirical research undertakings since the days of Durkheim. On the whole, these studies have been guided by the assumption that religious institu- tions determine social conformity to g m t degree. As Burkett et al. (1987) state, "most researchers are motivated by sincere and specific interest in the identification of causal processes linking religion as a source of con- ventional social control to deviant involvement." Despite the variations in techniques (i.e., bivariate vs. multivariate) employed to investigate the religion-crime relationship, and the ways in which the concepts of reli- gion (i.e., religiosity scale, religious commitment, church attendance, church membership, participation in religious activities, availability of religious places, Catholicism, and Islam) and crime (i.e., self-reported vs. officially reported criminal behavior, general vs. specific crime rates, seri- ous vs. minor delinquency, recidivists vs. nonrecidivists) are measured, the empirical evidence of many studies found that, generally speaking, religion has an inverse influence on criminal behavior. Moreover, this is true regardless of the religion in question (i.e., Pretzel 1973; Bwkett and 4 The American Journal of k h i c social Sciences 11:l White 1974; Hi& and Albercht 1977; Stark et al. 1982; Burkett et a t 1984; Stack et al. 1983; Martin 1984; P e t t e r n 1991; Welch et al. 1991; CFCP 1992; al S a w 1412/1992; a1 $an?‘ 1993). Even though religiosity is found to influence criminaf behavior regardless d the religion in question, it can be argued that the inverse relationship between religiosity in Islam and criminal temptation should be stronger and more p m o d than in other social and cultural con- texts. This umtention is based on the unique nature of the concept of reli- giosity in Islam. Islam is not only a religion: it is a comprehensive set of social, economic, and political doctfines that are to govern and regulate all aspects of human life. To clarify this issue as well as the distinctive effect of religiosity in Islam on criminal behavior, we now turn our atten- tion to defining the concept of religiosity in Islam. The Concept of Religiosity in Islam As noted above, social scientists have paid considerable attention to religiosity in their analyses of social issues. However, little c- exists on how the concept should be defined and employed. In part, this is due to the fact that social scientists do not agree on “what kind of phe- nomena can be called religion.” (Blotch 1985). More importantly, how- ever, humanity’s religions differ greatly in their emphasis on various values and behaviors as well as on the extent of their reach (Garth 1979; B l a h 1985). Given these considerations, a clear definition of this concept as it applies to Islam has to be developed before a discussion of its rela- tion to criminality is undertaken. As religiadty in Islam is a multidimen- sional concept covering a wide range of beliefs and practices and is based on the assumption that a person’s ideals and conduct are intertwined, its general meaning can be subsumed under two interrelated dimensions: 1. The belief (or covert) dimension, which represents an individual’s full and sincere belief in God as the Creator of the univetse and as the only One worthy of worship, and one’s belief in His angels, books, messengers, the Day of Judgment and the here- after, and in fate. 2. The conduct (or overt) dimension, which emphasizes the degree to which the belief dimension of religiosity is reflected thmugh- out the believer’s daily behavior and actions via the full obedi- ence and compliance to God’s commands and the avoidance of those acts and behavior forbidden by God. Islam, as both a doctrine and law, is seen to “dominate and permeate every minute of the Moslem’s life.” (Groves et al. 1987). An individual’s Al-Khalifah Religiosity as a Protective Mechanisn 5 religiosity ought to be reflected in all of his/her normal daily activities, for these are scaled and regulated by the limits of acceptable behavior. Accordingly, every action (verbal, nonverbal, or intended) is gmuped into one of five classes: commended, recommended, legally indifferent, repto- bated, or forbidden (Bakri 1979; Aref 1988). Thetefore, worship in Islam includes all of these aspects of beliefs and practices equally. It is not confined to the mere belief in God, the regular performance of five daily prayem, giving zakat, fasting during the month of Ramadan, or con- ducting war against oppression, but extends its realm to atenas of inter- actions and relations within and outside the family circle (i.e., enjoining good and tefraining fmm evil, education, frequent recitation of the Qur'an, telling the ttuth, fulfilling trusts, being kind to parents and rela- tives, keeping pmmises, doing good deeds, avoiding evil, treating neigh- bors, orphans, the poor, and wayfares properly and taking care of their possessions). Worship is also maintained by avoiding behavior deemed forbidden (i.e., eating pork, drinking alcohol, taking interest in monetary dealings, out-of-wedlock sexual relations, telling lies, and engaging in magic, envy, and dishonesty). In addition, the Qur'an and hadith contain rules and guidance for personal and interpemnal conduct in many aspects of life (i.e., marriage, divorce, manner of speech, general posture towards otheB, and mannem of walking, working, eating, and sleeping) (Al-Katan, 1980; a1 Sm-' 1993). Given this wide range, Muslim social scientists who seek to me8suTe religiosity have found it necessary to construct a comprehensive scale to capture religiosity dimensions. A framework of some sixty or more items is employed to reptesent an individual's overall religiosity (a1 Wi 1985; a1 $m-' 1993). Having defined the concept and delineated its unique fea- tures within an Islamic context, the question now becomes "What is it about religiosity in Islam that makes it a pmtective mechanism against criminal temptation?" In response, it m be stated that such religiosity puts considerable constmints on criminal temptation. The processes and mechanisms by which religiosity influences criminality are: a) the Islamic perception of law; b) the Islamic perception of crime; c) the Islamic per- ception of punishment d) Islamic rituals and social cohesion; and e) other Islamic protective m e a s w . The Islamic Perception of Law. The utilitarian, positivistic, and radical as- sumptions underlying most modem laws may have overlooked the impact of how people viewed the nature and the source of law on criminality- divine or human law-and the power and capability of those making the law to enforce it (Mursi 141311993). On the contrary, Islamic law seeks to motalize legal action and formalities by placing them in the context of religion and morality (Ares 1988), with the result that law is perceived by its adherents to be divine in nature and not made by a particular group 6 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 11: 1 of people. This religious petception of the law increases the law’s impor- tance and credibility as well as the d e g m of its objectivity and respecta- bility, factors that make adhemce to it and its applicability, in some stab, rationally grounded @i& 1969; Bakri 1979; Aref 1988). For instance, al Qurtubi (1967) inclicab that when the ”Law of Equality” was prescribed by God, during the early days of Islam, Muslims had no difficulty in accepting it, for it was God’s law. In this regard, M m i (1413/1993) argues that there is no force in the social defence arena stronger than the actor’s solid belief that the reward and the punishment for a given conduct is related, first of all, to God. In a more general sense, there can be no separation between law and religion in Islam, as pointed out by Gibb (1949). Law is the external con- cept of religion. From this follows an important characteristic of Islamic law: the spirit by which its judgments are made. In framing its defini- tions, therefore, the ethical aspect is paramount, and no legal judgment can be in conflict with it. This is a very important point for, as Aref (1988) puts it, “human behavior is so complex that to control it in a com- prehensive way, there must be an integrative synthesis of religion, morality and law.“ The Islamic Perception of Crime. One distinguishing feature of Islamic ideology concetning crime is its view that crime is a violation of God‘s law and thus is directed against God before the immediate victim (Bakri 1979; al Sa‘id 1412/1992; al San?‘ 1993). Crime in general is seen as the action of nonbelievers (a1 Samiliiti 1990) or of those with weak faith, which makes them vulnerable to criminal temptations (Qadri 1985). Religiosity is seen as the s o w e of conformity and, as a result, a pmtec- tion against criminal behavior. Islam prohibits all minor and major of- fenses, mischief, unlawful deeds, aggression, and sins. It warns societies that ignore these prohibitions and allow them to spread among the people that they will suffer decline (Al-Katan 1980). It seems clear that a reli- giously oriented person would abstain from criminal activity and would consider it below hi&er dignity to commit any criminal act (Qutb 1980). The Islamic Perception of Punishment. Through our discussion of the effect of religiosity in Islam on criminality, it is clear that Islam emphasizes indirect protective measures rather than ditect punishment. But, most importantly, the concept of punishment has a unique feature: a religious dimension that allows one’s avoidance of punishment to increase one’s conformity to the Islamic social order. In this case, punishment is considered to be of two types: divine and worldly. Divine punishment is what awaits each individual who failed to live in accotdance with the Shari‘ah but managed to escape punishment during his/her lifetime. This divine punishment is viewed as severe and eternal, Al-Khalifalr Religiosity as a Rotective Mechanism 7 for those who are guilty of violating the law of God and sought to es- cape the Day of Judgment. Worldly punishment, on the other hand, is applied by the state to those who violate social rules and morality. Such punishment can be divided into two subcategories: fixed and discretionary. Fixed punish- ments are those defined as such in the Qur’an and the hadith. They are referred to as the crimes against the five necessities (i.e., the preservation of religion, life, intellect, offspring, and property) that Islam, through its religious commands and prohibitions, seeks to protect in order to realize its main objectives. The main sources of Islam have specified both the crime and the punishment, based on the individual’s degree of guilt, in- tent, relevant circumstances, and the weapons used. Crimes of this sort include homicide, highway robbery, adultery, theft, fornication, and per- sonal injury. The death penalty and other physical punishment measUtes are specified for these crimes. Discretionary punishments allow the judge sufficient leeway in the determination of punishment, for the exact punishments have not been specified in the Islamic sources. One example is drug trafficking, which carries the death penalty in Saudi Arabia. Saudi jurists passed this law on the grounds that it would serve as a detemnt to protect society from this crime and its negative effects. The “worldly” punishment, although designated as such, is given reli- gious substance. Punishment is applied publicly. In addition, it fulfills a specific function (i.e., preventing the criminal from committing future crimes) and a general function (i.e., preventing people, including the criminal, from committing crimes) (Krohn 1991). Islam consides punish- ment as a way to purify criminals of their sins so that they will not be punished in the hereafter. If their repentance is sincere, they will be em- powered to resist future criminal temptations. Social scientists such as Tittle (1969) found that the certainty and seventy of punishment lowered crime rates in the United States. The fact that divine punishment is seen as certain and severe (eternal punishment) allows religiosity in Islam to function as a major protective mechanism against criminal involvement. Islamic Rituals and Social Cohesion. Sociologists have long acknowl- edged the significance of social cohesion in constraining criminal beha- vior (Durkheh 1951; Reppetto 1974; Genevie et al. 1987; a1 Khalifah 1413/1993). Social cohesion, as viewed by Durkheim, is a precondition for the effectiveness of social regulation. In other words, people have to feel attached to a collectivity in order to observe its rules willingly. Al- though collectivity, generally speaking, is seen to be a function of reli- gion, in Islam its relationship with religion may be more pronounced: Islamic rituals embrace the feeling of community which it is thought modem societies have lost and that crime, among other 8 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 11: 1 social problems, has replaced. In an important sense, the Islamic communities possess a moral climate that should result in a lower level of crime and/or delinquency. (Stark et. al 1982) Most forms of worship in Islam, aside from their religious functions (i.e., attachment to God and the enhancement of modity), are perfomed in public (Al-Katan 1980). This helps to develop an environment of com- munal piety. For example, Muslims a encouraged to pray the five daily prayers in public and together. Clearly, such a practice has more than a purely religious fundton: it is a mechanism to bring people together and enhance their social bonds. It is also a tool that makes “religious influ- ences permeate the culture and the social interactions of people in ques- tion” (Stark et al. 1982). Another example is giving alms, representing one fortieth of one’s possessions for an entire year, to the needy. This helps to preserve a sense of community. In addition to easing economic hardship, it shrinks the gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots” and thus curbs any tendency towads conflict between the two groups. Other Islamic Protective Measures. It is generally assumed that indi- viduals have potentially insatiable desires, which means that they are vul- nerable to c b i n a l temptations. To control these desires, Durkheim (1951) asserted that cultural norms are needed to define limits and the proper means of satisfying them. Without such norms and means, people will behave as they please to satisfy their desires (Krohn 1991). Islam has accounted for these deviant desires and impulses that de- mand satisfaction and recognizes that each desire can be satisfied through appropriate and inappropriate means. In short, it can be said that while Islam forbids certain methods of satisfying human desires, it also provides specific means &ugh which they can be satisfied. As we have seen in our conceptualization of religiosity, Islam provides suitable norms to gov- em such desires and impulses, defines the means by which they can by satisfied (Mmi 1413/1993), and, more importantly, places these norms and means in the context of religion so that their acceptability and effec- tiveness is enhanced. In this context, it can be seen that Islam only forbids that which is a religiously inappropriate beahvior to a specific need or desire. For example, an individual’s sexual urges can be satisfied in a number of ways (i.e., marriage, adultery, masturbation), but only marriage is con- sidered It is therefore encouraged, while the other two are forbidden. Another example is the accumulation of wealth, a desire that can be satis- fied through hard and honest work, theft, robbery, buying and selling ttarrsactionS, taking i n t e a , and many other ways. However, Islam deems honest buying and selling ttslnsactions and honest hard work to be the appropriate means, and this outlaws the others on the grounds that they 9 either violate a person's rights (i.e., theft, robbery) or lead to monopoly and the inevitable negative consequences (i.e., taking intemst). Islam assigns very crucial protective roles to the family and its insti- tutions, for it is the first social institution raporrsible for socializing young people and integrating them into society. By setting and pmenting a good Islamic example in their daily behavior and interaction with others, the parents' Islamic ideals, values, and teaching can have a signifi- cant impact on the behavior of their children. Through a process of inter- nalizing the fundamental social values, children come to be an integml and effective part of their Society. Examples that highlight the family's central importance as the social agent that links young people to society in accordance with Islam can be taken from the commands and recom- mendations concerning the basis of family f o m t i o n as well as the regu- lations that determine the duties, rights, and expectations of the pamts and of each other. For instance, males are encouraged to marry to religiously oriented females, and fathers are encouraged to seek reli- giously oriented men to marry their daughters (Siibiq 1985). The message underlying such tecommendations concerns not only the futute sfability of the family, but also how the children will be raised. As a further protective measwe, Islam makes it obligatory for every one, in accotdance to his ability, to "enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil." This is a vital mechanism that makes people reinforce each other's conformist behavior. Moreover, it exerts tremendous psychological pressure on deviants by reminding them frequently and constantly that they should conform to Islamic norms. Such a practice "inculcates in the people love for virtues and abhorrence of vices." Accordingly, it consti- tutes "a bulwark against most crimes" (Al-Rasheed 1980). Conclusion In this paper, we have seen that religiosity, in an Islamic context, serves as a mechanism that shields people from criminal temptaticm. By placing the concept of law in the realm of religion, seeing a crime as a violation of God's law before seeing it as a violation of a person's rights, being aware of the certainty and severity of punishment in the afterlife, as well as the other mentioned socially protective measures, criminality is kept to minimum among Muslims. It follows that Islam provides a unique social control petspective, one that has accounted for the main parameters underlying the mechanisms of social control: religion, moral- ity, and law. The interdependence of these factors not only gives a ra- tional meaning by which Muslims can evaluate their goals but, more importantly, specifies all moral means at various levels of human life (i.e., economic, political, and personal) h u g h which they can realize their goals. 10 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 11 : 1 References A m , M. "New Dimensions of Criminality and Crime Prevention in De- veloping Countries: An Integrated and Global Perspective with a Spe- cial Reference to Islamic Ideology as a New Dimension for Crime Prevention." In Annual Book ofSociology. Riyadh. Imam Muhammad ibn Saud Islamic University, Department of Sociology, 1988. Bak~i, M. "The Significant Influences of Islamic Law on D e c d n g Crime Rates in Saudi Arabian Society: An Attitudinal Comparative Study." Ph.D. diss., United States International University, 1979. Becarria, C. An Essay on Crimes and Punishments. Philadelphia: Nicklh, 1764. Blotch, M. "Religion and Ritual." In The Social Science Encyclopedia, edited by A. Kuper and J. Jumper. London: Routledge, 1985. Bumett, S. R. and B. 0. Warren. "Religiosity, Peer Associations and Adolescent Marijuana Use: A Penal Study of Underlying Causal Structure." Criminology, no. 25 (1987): 109-31. Bumett, S. R. and M. White. "Hellfire and Delinquency: Another Look." Journal f o r the Scientijk Study of Religion, no. 13 (1974): 455-62. Diriiz, Mubammad. A1 Dfn. Cairo: Matba'at a1 Sa'Edah, 1969. Douglas, M. "The Effect of Modernization on Religious Change." In Reli- gion and America: Spirituality in a Secular Age, edited by M. Douglas and S. Tipton. Boston: Beacon, 1g83. Durkheim, E. Suicide. New York The Free P m , 1951. Genevie, L. et al. "Predictors of Looting in Selected Neighborhoods of New York City during the Blackout of 1977." Sociology and Social Research, no. 71 (1978): 228-31. Ghayth, Mubammad. Qdmzis 'Zlm a1 Zjtimd'. Egypt: Matiibi' a1 Hay'ah a1 Misriyah a1 'Ammah li a1 Kitiib, 1979. Gibb, H. A. R. Mohammedanism: An Historical Survey. London: Oxford University Press, 1949. Groves, W., G. Newman, and C. Corrado. "Islam, Modernization and Crime: A Test of the Religious Ecology Thesk."Journal of Criminal Justice, no. 15 (1987): 495-503. Higgins, P. C. and G. L. Albrecht. "Hellfire and Delinquency Revisited." Social Forces, no. 55 (1987): 952-58. Hirsch 1. T. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969. Ibn Khaldiin. Muqaddimah Zbn Khaldcn. Beirut: Diir al 'Ilm, 1981. Kaplan, H. B. Deviant Behavior in Defense of Sel$ New York Academic Press, 1980. Al-Katan, M. "Effect of Religion against Clime." In The E f e c t of Zslamic Legislation on Crime Prevention in Saudi Arabia: Proceedings of the Al-Khalifah: Religiosity as a Protective Mechanism 11 Symposium Held in Riyadh on 9-13 October 1976. Rome: UNSDRI, 1980. a1 Khalifah, 'Abd All&. a1 Muhadid& a1 Ijtimd'@ah li Tawzf a1 Jarimah ‘ski Ihyd' Madinat a1 R i y d . Riyadh: M a r k AbGth Mu- kiifibat al Jan-mah, Wi&t al D a l i y a h , 1413/1993). Krohn, M. In Control and Deterrence Theories. 1991. Lander, B. Toward an Understanding of Juvenile Delinquency. New York Columbia University Press, 1954. Maccoby, E., J. Johnson, and R. Church. "Community Integration and the Social Control of Juvenile Delinquency." Journal of Social Issues, no. Madkour, M. ffDefining Crime Responsibility According to Islamic Legi- slation." In 73e Efect of Islumic Legislation on Crime Prevention in Saudi Arabia: Proceedings of the Symposium Held in Riyadh on 9-13 October 1976. Rome: UNSDRI, 1980. Martin, W. T. "Religiosity and United States Suicide Rates: 1972-1978." Journal of Clinical Psychology, no. 40 (1984): 1166-69. Markaz AbhEth Mukifibat a1 Jarimah. A1 'Awd ilii a1 I j r h : Dirtfsah Maydcfn@ah 'an Zdhirat I ' t i y d a1 Ijrdm. Riyadh: Wizsirat al D W l - iyah, 1412/1992). a1 Mursl, Mubammad. "Nabwa Tasawwur IsliimT li Mabiidi' al Difa' a1 IjtimG'i didd a1 Jarimah." Majallat a1 Aman, no. 6 (1413/1993): 75- 107. Nye, F. I. Family Relationships and Delinquent Behavior. New York Wiley, 1958. Pettersson, T. "Religion and Criminality: Structural Relationships between Church Involvement and Crime Rates in Contemporary Sweden." Journal f o r the ScientBc Study of Religion, no. 30 (1991): 279-91. Pretzel, P. W. "Suicide and Religion: A Preliminary Study." Dissertation Abstracrs International, no. 34 (1973): 2948-49. a1 Qiidiri, 'Abd Alliih. Sabab a1 Jarimah. Jed& DGr a1 Mujtama' li a1 Nashr wa a1 Tawzi', 1985. a1 Qurtubi, Abii 'Abd Alliih. al Jtimi' li Ahkxim a1 Qur'iin. Cairo: DEr a1 Kitiib a1 'Ambi li a1 Tibi'ah wa a1 Nashr, 1967. Qutb, M. "The Influence of Islamic Education on Crime Prevention." In The Efect of Islamic Legislation on Crime Prevention in Saudi Arabia: Proceedings of the Symposium Held in Riyadh on 9-13 Oc- tober 1976. Rome: UNSDRI, 1980. Al-Rasheed, N. "Influence of Qur'anic Teaching to Enjoin the Good and Refrain from Evil Deeds on Crime Prevention." In The Eflect of Is- lamic Legislation on Crime Prevention in Saudi Arabia: Proceedings of the Symposium Held in Riyadh on 9-13 October 1976. Rome: UNSDRI, 1980. 14 (1958): 38-51. 12 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 1 1: 1 Reckless, W. "A New Theory of Delinquency and Crime." Federal Pro- ----- . The Crime Problem. 5th ed. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear, 1973. Reppetto, T. A. Residential Crime. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1974. Siibiq, a1 Sayyid. Fiqh a1 Sunnah. 2d ed. Beirut: Dlr a1 K i t a al 'Arabi, 1985. a1 Sa'id, A4mad. "DirSah li ba'd Mutaghayyiriit a1 Shakhsiyah li al Muj-rimin a1 'A'idin li a1 Sujiin fi al Mamlakah al 'Arabiyah al Sa'idiyah." Ph.d. diss., Imam Muhammad ibn Sa'ud UnivetSity, 1 4 1 21 1992) a1 S d i t i , Nabil. "a1 Tafsir a1 I s l a - li a1 Inbi6f wa al Sulik al 1jrih-C" Majallat Jdmi'at a1 Imam Mubmmad ibn Sa'Cd a1 Ishim- ouh, no. 3 (1990): 405-68. a1 $m-', IbASm. A1 Tadayyun ' I @ a1 Jarimah. Riyadh: Jiimi'at a1 Iaziim M&ammad ibn Sa'iid a1 Islh-yah, al Majlis a1 'Ilmt, 1993. Shelley, J. Criminology. Bemount, CA.: Wadsworth, 1991. Stack, S. and M. Kanavy."The Effect of Religion on Forcible Rape: A S t r u c M Analysis." Journal f o r the Scientific Study of Religion, no. Stark, R., L. Kent, and D. P. Doyle. "Religion and Delinquency: The Ecology of a Lost Relationship." Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, no. 19 (1982): 4-24. Stark, R. and W. Bainbridge. The Future of Religion: Secularization, Re- vival and Cult Formation. Berkeley: UnivetSity of California Press, 1985. al ?Ti, Niziir. Miqy& a1 SulCk a1 D&C Kuwait: Sharikat a1 Rubiysin li a1 Nashr wa al Tawzi', 1985. Tuttle, C. "Crime Rates and Legal Sanctions." Social Problems, no. 16 Tucker, R. The Marx-Engels Reader. New York W. W. Norton, 1978. Waldo, G. P. and T. G. Chiricm. "Perceived Penal Sanctions and Self Re- ported Criminology: A Neglected Appmach to Deterrence Research." Social Problems, no. 19 (1972): 522-40. Weber, M. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958. Welch, M., C. Tuttle, and T. Petee. "Religion and Deviance among Adult Catholics: A Test of the Moral Communities Hypothesis." Journal f o r the Scientific Study of Religion, no. 30 (1991): 159-72. Wuthnow, R. "Sociology of Religion" Handbook of Sociology, edited by N. Smelser. Beverley Hills: Sage, 1988. bation, no. 25 (1961): 42-6. 22 (1983): 67-74. (1969): 408-23.