The general public and many academics have several preconceived notions about Islamic Law. One such notion is that Islamic judges are bound by ancient and outdated rules of fixed punishments for all crimes. This paper explores that idea and looks at other myths in an attempt to present Islamic Law from a non-biased view of Sharia Law. Some contemporary scholars fail to recognize Islamic Law as an equal to English Common Law, European Civil Law and Socialist Law. A few academics have even attempted to place Islamic Law into the Civil Law tradition. Other writers have simply added a footnote to their works on comparative justice on the religious law categories of Islamic Law, Hindu Law, which is still used in some parts of India, and the Law of Moses from the Old Testament which still guides the current thought of the Israeli Knesset (Parliament) today. This survey will attempt to alter some of these inaccurate perceptions and treatments in both the contemporary literature and academic writings. Mohammed Salam Madkoar explains the theoretical assumptions of Islamic Law: In order to protect the five important indispensables in Islam (religion, life, intellect, offspring and property), Islamic Law has provided a worldly punishment in addition to that in the hereafter. Islam has, in fact, adopted two courses for the preservation of these five indispensables: the first is through cultivating religious consciousness in the human soul and the awakening of human awareness through moral education; the second is by inflicting deterrent punishment, which is the basis of the Islamic criminal system. Therefore Hudoud, Retaliation (Qisas)and Discretionary (Tazir) punishments have been prescribed according to the type of the crime committed. Islamic Law and Jurisprudence is not always understood by the western press. Although it is the responsibility of the mass media to bring to the worlds attention violations of human rights and acts of terror, many believe that media stereotyping of all Muslims is a major problem. The recent bombing at the World Trade Center in New York City is a prime example. The media often used the term Islamic Fundamentalists when referring to the accused in the case. It also referred to the Egyptian connections in that case as Islamic Fundamentalists. The media has used the label of Islamic Fundamentalist to imply all kinds of possible negative connotations: terrorists, kidnappers and hostage takers. Since the media does not use the term Fundamentalist Christian each time a Christian does something wrong, the use of such labels is wrong for any group, Christians, Muslims, or Orthodox Jews. A Muslim who is trying to live his religion is indeed a true believer in God. This person tries to live all of the tenets of his religion in a fundamental way. Thus, a true Muslim is a fundamentalist in the practice of that religion, but a true Muslim is not radical, because the Quran teaches tolerance and moderation in all things. When the popular media generalizes from the fundamentalist believer to the radical fundamentalist label they do a disservice to all Muslims and others.
Posted on: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 04:36:00 +0000