According to Wikipedia:
A significant difference between the classical and modern systems of Islamic law is that classical Islamic law was "independent of any state mechanism", while modern Islamic law is "controlled by the state because the state often controls the legal scholars." According to Sameer S. Vohra, "This control mechanism results in a lack of the sort of pluralism that once made the Islamic legal system as innovative and fluid as its United States counterpart."
So apparently there was a time when competing private tribunals would hand down judgments.
It wasn't clear to me what legal concepts there are, unique to sharia, that are worthwhile investigating. I noticed one I wasn't familiar with but I don't know how I feel about it:
The precursor to the English assize of novel disseisin was the Islamic Istihqaq, an action "for the recovery of usurped land", in contrast to the previous Roman law which "emphasized possession in resolving such disputes." The "assize of novel disseisin broke with this tradition and emphasized ownership, as is found in the Islamic law of Istihqaq.
In other words, land (or other things I guess) should be returned if a dispossession has been shown to have taken place, and ownership is sorted out after.
I guess it is a good thing that a large number of people could be open to polycentric law. There was a recent article that should be of interest: Limited Government in the al Anbar Province of Iraq
Why does many a man write? Because he does not possess enough character not to write. ---Karl Kraus.
As far as I can tell, Islamic banking is conducted according to various scholars' interpretation of the Koran, but in many countries there's no central authority saying what the correct interpretation is. So various Islamic banks offer different financial products, depending on how they interpret Islam. Any disputes are resolved by external arbitrators (not necessarily the government).
E. R. Olovetto: It wasn't clear to me what legal concepts there are, unique to sharia, that are worthwhile investigating. I noticed one I wasn't familiar with but I don't know how I feel about it: The precursor to the English assize of novel disseisin was the Islamic Istihqaq, an action "for the recovery of usurped land", in contrast to the previous Roman law which "emphasized possession in resolving such disputes." The "assize of novel disseisin broke with this tradition and emphasized ownership, as is found in the Islamic law of Istihqaq. In other words, land (or other things I guess) should be returned if a dispossession has been shown to have taken place, and ownership is sorted out after. I guess it is a good thing that a large number of people could be open to polycentric law. There was a recent article that should be of interest: Limited Government in the al Anbar Province of Iraq
Depending on the school of thought, some advocates of sharia law are actually quite libertarian and find many reasons to justify it under the legal history.
The zakat, for example, is only a 2% alms giving of your savings to the community and only obligatory for Muslims to Muslims - something similar exists for Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics.
existence is elsewhere
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap