Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Schools of Law
I found this reading to be very interesting. I was questioning how they could make laws that have to do with modern day issues like technology when the laws are said to have come from the time of Muhammad. Obviously things like computers and the Internet weren't around in those times. I thought it was interesting how they decided that using loud speakers for the Call to Prayer were acceptable based on the things that Muhammad had done in his lifetime (getting a person named Bilal to do the Call to Prayer since his voice was very loud and many people could hear it). But I'm not sure all things could be traced back to the times of Muhammad, how do you think the lawmakers interpret laws that really don't have any reference in the Qur'an or in Hadiths. This reading also talked about the different types or strengths of Islamic law. I am wondering if this sometimes causes conflict in the Islamic world because one place has a different set of rules or severity of those rules. I also thought it was interesting that in Islamic law people are not accused by a larger party like the state or county in which the crime took place (Western Practice) they are accused by an individual of doing a wrongdoing. And instead of coming to a verdict or punishment, they try to resolve their law cases by coming to an understanding or an agreement. I wonder if this causes more peace in their cultures or leads to more misunderstandings. What did you guys think of this reading?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
In reference to how the islamic law accuses a person of wrongdoing on an individual basis instead of by a state or country and whether or not this might be a better method of doing things, it actually states in the reading that " the realities of an overburdened legal system and less than concientious judges mean that people unfamiliar with the law have fewer safegaurds than if it were subject to a rigid legal code". So its stating that for those reasons coupled with not knowing the law this system might not be as good. But reading that statment i feel that these reasons are exactly the same problems that we have in law in western societies, and overburdened legal system and subjective judges who might not be all that moral of people. considering that i really feel that the system is probably just as effective...except for that as someone coming from outside this religous community that violated a religous law you would feel like the system was unfair or that the law had no real basis and not agree with it. (such as eating pork or drinking)
I think the religious legal system has its perks. For one, the outcome isn't a verdict, rather a settlement between the two parties or the individual party. So if one has committed and accepted his wrong-doing, he/she now has the opportunity to set his/her 'punishment'. For a settlement to actually happen, both parties must agree, therefore the 'punishment' is not really a punishment because the wrong-doer is agreeing to it.. Which I guess seems fair in certain circumstances... But what about the extremes? What happens when murder, rape, or cruelty is the crime? How does the legal system act on these issues? As opposed to the smaller cases, such as stealing an orange for example, reason is present, in a murder,rape, cruelty case, emotion overtakes reason. How does one reach a settlement with someone who is a murderer? Personally, I think that in these cases, the Islamic legal system is more difficult to understand...
I agree that not having verdicts or punishments could lead to confusion, revenge, and people not understanding the law very well. Middle Eastern law being originated from the Qur'an reminded me of how some laws in America incorporate laws from the Bible such as the Ten Commandments. I interpreting Christian laws would be easier than Islamic law because of all the forbidden foods for certain people in the Middle East. I was surprised at some of the forbidden foods and wonder why some of them are forbidden. It makes sense to have designated people interpret laws that involve modern technology, rather than everyone interpreting it in their own way.
In response to the first comment about loud speakers and not being able to use technology and such now because it was not used in Muhammad's time is that times are changing, technology is progressing and people need to change with it or they will be left behind. Since the community has grown, it is more of a necessity to have a loud speaker so all can hear from wherever they are. To the second comment about punishment versus agreements, I think that coming to an agreement instead of punishing someone leaves them with little motivation to obey laws. They think that if they break a law, the law will just be re-evaluated whereas they would think twice about breaking a law because it could result in extreme punishment.
I would also like to comment on the issues concerning technology. I agree with Julia, times are changing and it would be foolish not to change along with technology. The technology in warfare has greatly changed since the time of Muhammad. Muslims have incorporated new military technologies, why is there such debated about advancement in technology in other aspects of life?
I think the idea of being charged by an individual rather than the state is an interesting idea. In a perfect society this would probably work. However, one only has to look at such examples as the Salem Witch Trials to see that this really doesnt work. It is a nice idea but only having one person making accusations is very easily corruptible so you must be very careful
Post a Comment