Comparative study of doctrines in Islamic and modern law
Comparative Study of Doctrines in Islamic and Modern Law
Islamic law (Sharia) and modern law share many fundamental principles but differ in origins, sources, and application. Islamic law is primarily derived from the Quran, Sunnah (Prophetic traditions), Ijma (consensus), and Qiyas (analogical reasoning), whereas modern law is based on codified statutes, constitutions, judicial precedents, and legislation.
Key doctrines to compare include:
Justice (‘Adl)
Maslaha (Public Interest)
Accountability and Rule of Law
Rights and Duties
Sources of Law and Interpretation
Concept of Authority
Due Process and Evidence
Punishment and Mercy
Case Illustrations (Detailed explanations)
Case 1: Doctrine of Justice (‘Adl) in Islamic and Modern Law
Islamic Law: Justice is a divine command, an essential attribute of God, demanding fairness, equality, and impartiality. Courts and rulers must act justly, as emphasized in numerous Quranic verses.
Modern Law: Justice is a foundational principle expressed through fairness, equality before the law, and due process.
Example Case:
A dispute over inheritance was adjudicated under Islamic law, where the shares of heirs are explicitly prescribed in the Quran, ensuring justice as per divine command. In a modern civil law jurisdiction, the court applied statutory inheritance laws focusing on equitable distribution based on family needs.
Outcome: Both systems strive for justice but through different frameworks—divine prescription vs. codified law with discretion.
Case 2: Doctrine of Maslaha (Public Interest) vs. Public Policy
Islamic Law: Maslaha allows for flexibility and adapting rulings to benefit society, even if not explicitly stated in the texts.
Modern Law: Public policy serves a similar function, allowing courts or legislatures to create or interpret laws for societal welfare.
Example Case:
An administrative decision banning a harmful public practice was challenged. Under Islamic law, the decision was justified by Maslaha to prevent harm (darar). Modern administrative law also upheld the decision under the doctrine of public interest and safety.
Outcome: Both doctrines provide a basis for administrative discretion aimed at societal welfare.
Case 3: Accountability of Rulers (Hisbah) vs. Rule of Law
Islamic Law: Hisbah mandates accountability of rulers and public officials to ensure they enforce Sharia and act justly, with community members or appointed officials having the right to promote good and forbid evil.
Modern Law: Rule of law requires all, including rulers, to comply with the law, enforced by independent courts.
Example Case:
An official abusing power was brought before an Islamic court where the Hisbah officer initiated the complaint. In a modern legal system, the case was filed in an administrative court with judicial review.
Outcome: Both systems institutionalize accountability, though mechanisms and actors differ.
Case 4: Sources of Law and Judicial Interpretation
Islamic Law: Judges use primary sources (Quran and Sunnah) and secondary tools (Ijma and Qiyas) for interpretation.
Modern Law: Judges interpret statutes, constitutional provisions, and precedents.
Example Case:
A dispute over contractual obligations was resolved by an Islamic court using analogical reasoning (Qiyas) because the contract type was novel. A modern court used precedent and statutory interpretation for the same issue.
Outcome: Both legal systems employ structured reasoning but with different source hierarchies.
Case 5: Due Process and Evidence
Islamic Law: Emphasizes strict evidentiary standards (like requiring witnesses in hudud cases) and fairness in hearings.
Modern Law: Incorporates rights to counsel, cross-examination, and procedural safeguards.
Example Case:
In a theft case, Islamic court required two male eyewitnesses for conviction, while a modern criminal court accepted circumstantial evidence and forensic reports.
Outcome: Both systems aim to protect the innocent but apply different evidentiary rules based on their doctrines.
Case 6: Punishment and Mercy
Islamic Law: Punishments (hudud, qisas, ta’zir) are prescribed with strong emphasis on mercy and forgiveness by victims.
Modern Law: Sentencing is guided by statutory guidelines with considerations for rehabilitation and proportionality.
Example Case:
In a case of bodily harm, Islamic law allowed the victim to forgive or accept compensation (diyya). Modern law applied a fixed sentencing guideline with parole options.
Outcome: Both systems seek balance between punishment and mercy, but mechanisms vary.
Summary
The comparative study shows that while Islamic and modern laws share core values like justice, accountability, and public interest, their doctrines differ in sources, interpretative methods, and applications. Islamic law relies on divine texts and principles like Maslaha and Hisbah, whereas modern law is grounded in codified statutes and judicial precedent.
Both systems adapt to societal needs through principles that allow flexibility while maintaining order and justice. These cases illustrate that despite different frameworks, the goals of fairness, protection of rights, and governance are common.
RELATED Blog
0 comments