Islamic Law in Operation

E. J. Jurji
{"title":"Islamic Law in Operation","authors":"E. J. Jurji","doi":"10.1086/370562","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Justice as conceived of in Islam was the privilege of the Moslem. It purported to affirm the rights of the poor and the humble but shirked any great or serious responsibility for those outside the pale of the faith. In Greek civilization two opposing conceptions of justice confront us: first, the popular conception as expressed in the tragedies; second, the philosophical conception as it was worked out by Plato and Aristotle, who, though they freed the idea of justice from the shackles of popular religion, failed to divorce justice from morality. Almost the reverse took place in Islam. Here legists brought about a partial separation between morality and the idea of justice, but they failed to disentangle justice from the fetters of religion. Their approach to the one-sided universalist conception of justice led the Greeks to identify morals with the philosophy of law and finally produced the so-called Stoic justice representing a transition toward the individualization of the Roman jurists, who borrowed the Stoic philosophy and wove it into their judicial system. Greek philosophy, however, had regarded law as impersonal in origin-a conclusion of reason and not an expression of will. Roman jurisprudence ascribed the character of law to either a conclusion of reason or an expression of will. This progressive enhancing of the volitional element finds its explanation in the importance, respectively, of the Roman emperor and the Christian God, as concepts dominating human reflection.' It is doubtful whether Islamic justice could ever have become what it is had it depended entirely upon the contents of the Koran and Tradition. Even the advent of analogical deduction (qiyds), consensus of opinion (ijmdc), the legal right of further interpreting the Koran and the Sunnah or of forming a new opinion by applying analogy (ijtihad), and private and legal opinion (ra y) would not have availed, or have been possible, but for the process of borrowing from outside sources.2 It may be desirable at this point to conceive","PeriodicalId":252942,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1940-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/370562","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Justice as conceived of in Islam was the privilege of the Moslem. It purported to affirm the rights of the poor and the humble but shirked any great or serious responsibility for those outside the pale of the faith. In Greek civilization two opposing conceptions of justice confront us: first, the popular conception as expressed in the tragedies; second, the philosophical conception as it was worked out by Plato and Aristotle, who, though they freed the idea of justice from the shackles of popular religion, failed to divorce justice from morality. Almost the reverse took place in Islam. Here legists brought about a partial separation between morality and the idea of justice, but they failed to disentangle justice from the fetters of religion. Their approach to the one-sided universalist conception of justice led the Greeks to identify morals with the philosophy of law and finally produced the so-called Stoic justice representing a transition toward the individualization of the Roman jurists, who borrowed the Stoic philosophy and wove it into their judicial system. Greek philosophy, however, had regarded law as impersonal in origin-a conclusion of reason and not an expression of will. Roman jurisprudence ascribed the character of law to either a conclusion of reason or an expression of will. This progressive enhancing of the volitional element finds its explanation in the importance, respectively, of the Roman emperor and the Christian God, as concepts dominating human reflection.' It is doubtful whether Islamic justice could ever have become what it is had it depended entirely upon the contents of the Koran and Tradition. Even the advent of analogical deduction (qiyds), consensus of opinion (ijmdc), the legal right of further interpreting the Koran and the Sunnah or of forming a new opinion by applying analogy (ijtihad), and private and legal opinion (ra y) would not have availed, or have been possible, but for the process of borrowing from outside sources.2 It may be desirable at this point to conceive
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
实施中的伊斯兰教法
在伊斯兰教中,正义是穆斯林的特权。它声称肯定穷人和卑微者的权利,但却逃避对信仰范围之外的人的任何重大或严重责任。在希腊文明中,我们面对着两种对立的正义观:第一种是悲剧中表现出来的大众正义观;第二,柏拉图和亚里士多德提出的哲学概念,尽管他们将正义的观念从大众宗教的束缚中解放出来,但却未能将正义与道德分开。伊斯兰教的情况几乎正好相反。在这里,法学家们把道德和正义的观念部分地分离开来,但他们没能把正义从宗教的束缚中解脱出来。他们对片面的普遍主义正义概念的态度,导致希腊人将道德与法律哲学等同起来,并最终产生了所谓的斯多葛正义,代表了罗马法学家向个体化的过渡,他们借用了斯多葛哲学,并将其融入他们的司法体系。然而,希腊哲学认为法在起源上是非人格的——是理性的结论,而不是意志的表达。罗马法律学把法律的性质归因于理性的结论或意志的表达。意志因素的这种逐步增强,可以分别从罗马皇帝和基督教上帝作为支配人类思想的概念的重要性中得到解释。如果伊斯兰教的正义完全依赖于《古兰经》和传统的内容,它是否会成为现在的样子,这是值得怀疑的。即使是类比演绎(qiyds),意见一致(ijmdc),进一步解释古兰经和圣训的合法权利,或通过应用类比(ijtihad)形成新的意见,以及私人和法律意见(ra y)的出现,如果不是从外部来源借鉴的过程,也不会有用,或者是不可能的在这一点上怀孕可能是可取的
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Darius and His Egyptian Campaign Book Review:The Prophets and Their Times J. M. Powis Smith, William A. Irwin The Oriental Institute Archeological Report on the near East, 1941 The Old Aramaic Alphabet at Tell Halaf the Date of the "Altar" Inscription Hurrian Consonantal Pattern
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1