@Aeronaut found this interesting
The Origins of Islamic Law
Islamic law represents one of the world's great legal systems. Like Judaic law, which influenced western legal systems, Islamic law originated as an important part of the religion.
Sharia, an Arabic word meaning "the right path," refers to traditional Islamic law. The Sharia
comes from the Koran, the sacred book of Islam, which Muslims consider the actual word of God. The Sharia
also stems from the Prophet Muhammad's teachings and interpretations of those teachings by certain Muslim legal scholars. Muslims believe that Allah (God) revealed his true will to Muhammad, who then passed on Allah's commands to humans in the Koran.
Since the Sharia originated with Allah, Muslims consider it sacred. Between the seventh century when Muhammad died and the 10th century, many Islamic legal scholars attempted to interpret the Sharia and to adapt it to the expanding Muslim Empire. The classic Sharia of the 10th century represented an important part of Islam's golden age. From that time, the
Sharia has continued to be reinterpreted and adapted to changing circumstances and new issues. In the modern era, the influences of Western colonialism generated efforts to codify it.
Development of the Sharia
Before Islam, the nomadic tribes inhabiting the Arabian peninsula
worshiped idols. These tribes frequently fought with one another.
Each tribe had its own customs governing marriage, hospitality, and revenge.
Crimes against persons were answered with personal retribution or were sometimes resolved by an arbitrator. Muhammad introduced a new religion into this chaotic Arab world. Islam affirmed only one true God. It demanded that believers obey God's will and laws.
The
Koran sets down basic standards of human conduct, but does not provide a detailed law code. Only a
few verses deal with legal matters. During his lifetime,
Muhammad helped clarify the law by interpreting provisions in the Koran and acting as a judge in legal cases. Thus, Islamic law, the Sharia, became an integral part of the Muslim religion.
Following Muhammad's death in A.D. 632,
companions of Muhammad ruled Arabia for about 30 years. These political-religious rulers, called
caliphs,
continued to develop Islamic law with their own pronouncements and decisions. The first caliphs also conquered territories outside Arabia including Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Persia, and Egypt.
As a result, elements of Jewish, Greek, Roman, Persian, and Christian church law also influenced the development of the Sharia.
Islamic law grew along with the expanding Muslim Empire. The Umayyad dynasty caliphs, who took control of the empire in 661, extended Islam into India, Northwest Africa, and Spain.
The Umayyads appointed Islamic judges, kadis, to decide cases involving Muslims. (Non-Muslims kept their own legal system.) Knowledgeable about the Koran and the teachings of Muhammad, kadis decided cases in all areas of the law.
Following a period of revolts and civil war, the Umayyads were overthrown in 750 and
replaced by the Abbasid dynasty. During the 500-year rule of the Abbasids, the
Sharia reached its full development.
Under their absolute rule, the
Abbasids transferred substantial areas of criminal law from the kadis to the government. The kadis continued to handle cases involving religious, family, property, and commercial law.
The Abbasids encouraged legal scholars to debate the Sharia vigorously. One group held that only the divinely inspired Koran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad should make up the Sharia. A rival group, however, argued that the Sharia should also include the reasoned opinions of qualified legal scholars.
Different legal systems began to develop in different provinces.
In an attempt to
reconcile the rival groups, a brilliant legal scholar named
Shafii systematized and developed what were called the "roots of the law."
Shafii argued that in solving a legal question, the kadior government judge should first consult the Koran. If the answer were not clear there, the judge should refer to the authentic sayings and decisions of Muhammad. If the answer continued to elude the judge, he should then look to the consensus of Muslim legal scholars on the matter. Still failing to find a solution, the judge could form his own answer by analogy from "the precedent nearest in resemblance and most appropriate" to the case at hand.
Shafii provoked controversy. He constantly criticized what he called "people of reason" and "people of tradition." While speaking in Egypt in 820, he was physically attacked by enraged opponents and died a few days later. Nevertheless,
Shafii's approach was later widely adopted throughout the Islamic world.
By around the year 900, the classic Sharia had taken shape. Islamic specialists in the law assembled handbooks for judges to use in making their decisions.
The classic
Sharia was not a code of laws, but a body of religious and legal scholarship that continued to develop for the next 1,000 years. The following sections illustrate some basic features of Islamic law
as it was traditionally applied.
Family Law
Cases involving
violations of some religious duties, lawsuits over property and business disputes, and family law all came before the kadis. Most of these cases would be considered
civil law matters in Western courts today.
Family law always made up an important part of the Sharia. Below are some features of family law in the classic Sharia that would
guide the kadi in making his decisions.
- Usually, an individual became an adult at puberty. (Even children were abused) (Western law = Juvenile detention)
- A man could marry up to four wives at once. (There was no limit before)
- A wife could refuse to accompany her husband on journeys. (Before women had no choice but to follow her husbands)
- The support of an abandoned infant was a public responsibility. (Western law = Child care services)
- A wife had the right to food, clothing, housing, and a marriage gift from her husband. (Women had no rights before , Western Law = women rights)
- When the owner of a female slave acknowledged her child as his own, the child became free. The child's mother became free when the owner died. (Slaves had no rights, the child of a slave would be slave ...and nothing could change that)
- In an inheritance, a brother took twice the amount as his sister. (The brother also had financial responsibility for his sister.) (Sisters never got anything before) (What sister got didnt need to be shared with brother but brother has a responsibility on sisters) (Western law = women rights)
- A husband could dissolve a marriage by repudiating his wife three times. (Not by utter talaq 3 times but by repudiating)
- A wife could return her dowry to her husband for a divorce. She could also get a decree from a kadi ending the marriage if her husband mistreated, deserted, or failed to support her. (Before women couldnt seek divorce no matter what) (Western law = women rights)
- After a divorce, the mother usually had the right of custody of her young children. (Before father ran off with the kids and women never got anything) (Western law def follows this now)
Criminal Law
The classic Sharia identified the most serious crimes as those mentioned in the Koran. These were considered sins against Allah and carried mandatory punishments. Some of these crimes and punishments were:
- adultery: death by stoning.
- highway robbery: execution; crucifixion; exile; imprisonment; or right hand and left foot cut off. (Depending on the level of the crime)
- theft: right hand cut off (second offense: left foot cut off; imprisonment for further offenses).
- slander: 80 lashes
- drinking wine or any other intoxicant: 80 lashes.
Officials of the caliph carried out the penalties for these crimes. (Not a normal judge not even a Qadhi):
Crimes against the person included
murder and bodily injury. In these cases, the victim or his male next of kin had the "right of retaliation"
where this was possible. This meant, for example, that the male next of kin of a murder victim could execute the murderer after his trial (usually by cutting off his head with a sword). If someone lost the sight of an eye in an attack, he could retaliate by putting a red-hot needle into the eye of his attacker who had been
found guilty by the law. But a
rule of exactitude required that a retaliator must give the same amount of damage he received. (You cant take money and do harm) If, even by
accident, he (the retaliator)
injured the person too much, he had broken the law and was subject to punishment. The rule of exactitude discouraged retaliation.
Usually, the injured person or his kinsman would agree to
accept money or something of value ("blood money") instead of retaliating.
In a third category of less serious offenses such as
gambling and
bribery, the judge used his discretion in deciding on a penalty. Punishments would often require the
criminal to pay a reparation to the victim, receive a certain number of lashes, or be locked up.
Criminal Procedure
The
victim of a criminal act or his kinsman ("the avenger of the blood") was
personally responsible for presenting a claim against the accused criminal before the court. The case then went on much like a
private lawsuit. No government prosecutor participated although certain officials brought some cases to court.
The classic Sharia provided for due process of law. This included notice of the claim made by the injured person,
the right to remain silent, and a presumption of
innocence in a fair and public trial before an impartial judge. There were
no juries. Both parties in the case had the right to have a lawyer present, but the individual bringing the claim and the defendant usually
presented their own cases. (No lawyer fee)
At trial, the
judge questioned the defendant about the claim made against him. If the
defendant denied the claim, the judge then
asked the accuser, who had the
burden of proof, to present his evidence. Evidence
almost always took the form of the
direct testimony of two male witnesses of good character (four in adultery cases). (Not in rape)
Circumstantial evidence and documents were usually inadmissible. Female witnesses were not allowed except in cases where they
held special knowledge, such as childbirth.
In such cases, two female witnesses were needed for every male witness.
After the accuser finished with his witnesses, the defendant could present his own.
If the accuser could not produce witnesses, he could demand that the defendant take an oath before Allah that he was innocent. "Your evidence or his oath," the Prophet Muhammad taught. If the defendant swore he was innocent, the judge dismissed the case. If he refused to take the oath, the accuser won.
The defendant could also confess to a crime, but this could only be done orally in open court. (In West they wait for this but in a closed room with 2 police pounding you with questions)
In all criminal cases,
the evidence had to be "conclusive" before a judge could reach a guilty verdict. An appellate system allowed persons to
appeal verdicts to higher government officials and to the ruler himself.
Islamic Law Today
In the 19th century,
many Muslim countries came under the control or influence of Western colonial powers. As a result,
Western-style laws, courts, and punishments began to appear within the Sharia. Some countries like Turkey totally abandoned the Sharia and adopted new law codes based on European systems.
Most Muslim countries put the government in charge of prosecuting and punishing criminal acts. In the area of family law, many countries prohibited polygamy and divorce by the husband's repudiation of his wife.
Modern legislation along with Muslim legal scholars who are attempting to relate the will of Allah
to the 20th century have reopened the door to interpreting the Sharia. This has happened even in highly traditional Saudi Arabia, where Islam began.
Since
1980, some countries with fundamentalist Islamic regimes like Iran have attempted to reverse the trend of westernization and return to the classic Sharia. But
most Muslim legal scholars today believe that the Sharia can be adapted to modern conditions without abandoning the spirit of Islamic law or its religious foundations. Even in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, the Sharia is creatively adapted to new circumstances.
So all those whining barbaric primitive law are found guilty of uttering nonesense! Why? Because Shariah is not as old as their vedas...Now if aurengzeb took advantage of your lack of knowledge, generations down the Indians still have no knowledge of Shariah ...and anyone (media) can brainwash them at will 
The Origins of Islamic Law - Constitutional Rights Foundation
This whole page was taken from a neutral American website:
Constitutional Rights Foundation (CRF) seeks to instill in our nation's youth a deeper understanding of citizenship through values expressed in our Constitution and its Bill of Rights and to educate young people to become active and responsible participants in our society. CRF is dedicated to assuring our country's future by investing in our youth today.
CRF is a non-profit, non-partisan, community-based organization dedicated to educating America's young people about the importance of civic participation in a democratic society. Under the guidance of a
Board of Directors chosen from the worlds of law, business, government, education, the media, and the community, CRF develops, produces, and distributes programs and materials to teachers, students, and public-minded citizens all across the nation.
For all the Indians who know Shariah better than the non-profit organization, kindly write to them regarding the false announcement of Shariah as it doesnt match the ones in their (Indian) brain!
.....If i will oppose then also u will get mad on me.....
