Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Islamic Judicial system Vs Capitalist Judicial System

3,136

Published on

This presentation provides comparison of Islamic Judicial System and the Capitalist Judicial system implemented in Pakistan

This presentation provides comparison of Islamic Judicial System and the Capitalist Judicial system implemented in Pakistan

Published in: Education
2 Comments
3 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • slide after slide justifies their own human prejudices and bias but justifies it all as 'devine' (which is misspelled). Of course there are differences between abilities and capabilities between people and even genders. These differences do not discount the equality of all before God. We are all brothers and sisters of the same worth before our Father. Any system which tries to justify subjugating some or making any second class are not of God but are instead, distortions made by men claiming to be spokesmen for God. Beware of such deceivers
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • awesome!!
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
3,136
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
190
Comments
2
Likes
3
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • An American psychologist, Professor Reek has published in a voluminous book the result of his researches into the affairs of man and woman. He says: "The world of man is totally different from that of woman. If woman cannot think or act like man, it is because they belong to two different worlds."
  • An American psychologist, Professor Reek has published in a voluminous book the result of his researches into the affairs of man and woman. He says: "The world of man is totally different from that of woman. If woman cannot think or act like man, it is because they belong to two different worlds."
  • An American psychologist, Professor Reek has published in a voluminous book the result of his researches into the affairs of man and woman. He says: "The world of man is totally different from that of woman. If woman cannot think or act like man, it is because they belong to two different worlds."
  • An American psychologist, Professor Reek has published in a voluminous book the result of his researches into the affairs of man and woman. He says: "The world of man is totally different from that of woman. If woman cannot think or act like man, it is because they belong to two different worlds."
  • An American psychologist, Professor Reek has published in a voluminous book the result of his researches into the affairs of man and woman. He says: "The world of man is totally different from that of woman. If woman cannot think or act like man, it is because they belong to two different worlds."
  • An American psychologist, Professor Reek has published in a voluminous book the result of his researches into the affairs of man and woman. He says: "The world of man is totally different from that of woman. If woman cannot think or act like man, it is because they belong to two different worlds."
  • An American psychologist, Professor Reek has published in a voluminous book the result of his researches into the affairs of man and woman. He says: "The world of man is totally different from that of woman. If woman cannot think or act like man, it is because they belong to two different worlds."
  • Criminal procedure Code (CrPC) (originally written in 1898) (defines crime and investigation)
    Indian evidence Act of 1872
    Indian evidence Act of 1872
    English decision related to evidence can be relied upon in Pakistan (The Qanun-e-Shahadat 1994 by Dr. C.M. Hanif)
    It is entirely based on English law of evidence (The Qanun-e-Shahadat 1994 by Dr. C.M. Hanif)
    By introducing Article 17 they have changed it become Islamic “Qanun-e-Shahadat”
    Article 3:
    … Court shall determine the competence of a witness in accordance with the qualification prescribed by the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah for a witness, and, where such witness is not forthcoming, the court may take the evidence of a witness who may be available.
  • The Hadith of Hazrat ‘Adi bin Hatim… taking gods beside Allah
    The origin of the judicial system and its validity is the Book and the Sunnah. As for the Book, Allah
    (SWT) says:
    "And judge between them by that which Allah has revealed." [Al-Mai'dah: 49]
  • The Hadith of Hazrat ‘Adi bin Hatim… taking gods beside Allah
  • Subject: Lawyer details the new criminal justice system of the U.S.A. Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 14:22:45 EST From: [email_address]
    Michael Ratner is an international human rights lawyer and vice-president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. He has brought numerous suits against the illegal use of military force by the United States Government and specializes in opposing government spying. Mr. Ratner teaches International Human Rights Litigation at Columbia Law School, and is the author of The Pinochet Papers, International Human Rights Litigation in US Courts, and Che Guevara and the FBI.
    ================================================================
    November 20, 2001
    Moving Toward A Police State (Or Have We Arrived?)
    Secret Military Tribunals, Mass Arrests and Disappearances, Wiretapping & Torture
    By Michael Ratner HumanRightsNow.org
    [text omitted]
    THE NEW ANTI-TERRORIST LEGISLATION
    Congress has passed and President Bush has signed sweeping new anti-terrorist legislation, the USA Patriot Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism), aimed at both aliens and citizens. The legislation met more opposition than one might expect in these difficult times. A National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom of over 120 groups ranging from the right to the left opposed the worst aspects of the proposed new law. They succeeded in making minor modifications, but the most troubling provisions remain, and are described below:
    Rights of Aliens
    Prior to the legislation, anti-terrorist laws passed in the wake of the 1996 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma had already given the government wide powers to arrest, detain and deport aliens based upon secret evidence -- evidence that neither the alien nor his attorney could view or refute. The current proposed legislation makes it even worse for aliens.
    First, the law would permit "mandatory detention" of aliens certified by the attorney general as "suspected terrorists." These could include aliens involved in barroom brawls or those who have provided only humanitarian assistance to organizations disfavored by the United States. Once certified in this way, an alien could be imprisoned indefinitely with no real opportunity for court challenge. Until now, such "preventive detention" was believed to be flatly unconstitutional.
    Second, current law permits deportation of aliens who support terrorist activity; the proposed law would make aliens deportable for almost any association with a "terrorist organization." Although this change seems to have a certain surface plausibility, it represents a dangerous erosion of Americans' constitutionally protected rights of association. "Terrorist organization" is a broad and open-ended term that could include liberation groups such as the Irish Republican Army, the African National Congress, or civic groups that have ever engaged in any violent activity, such as Greenpeace. An alien who gives only medical or humanitarian aid to similar groups, or simply supports their political message in a material way could be jailed indefinitely.
    [text omitted]
    Under the new law, the same secret court will have the power to authorize wiretaps and secret searches of homes in criminal cases -- not just to gather foreign intelligence. The FBI will be able to wiretap individuals and organizations without meeting the stringent requirements of the Constitution. The law will authorize the secret court to permit roving wiretaps of any phones, computers or cell phones that might possibly be used by a suspect. Widespread reading of e-mail will be allowed, even before the recipient opens it. Thousands of conversations will be listened to or read that have nothing to do with the suspect or any crime.
    The new legislation is filled with many other expansions of investigative and prosecutorial power, including wider use of undercover agents to infiltrate organizations, longer jail sentences and lifetime supervision for some who have served their sentences, more crimes that can receive the death penalty and longer statutes of limitations for prosecuting crimes. Another provision of the new bill makes it a crime for a person to fail to notify the FBI if he or she has "reasonable grounds to believe" that someone is about to commit a terrorist offense. The language of this provision is so vague that anyone, however innocent, with any connection to anyone suspected of being a terrorist can be prosecuted. We will all need to become spies to protect ourselves and the subjects of our spying, at least for now, will be those from the Mid East.
    ==========================================
    In 1798, the United States almost went to war with France.
    France, angry that we had signed a treaty with England behind its back, began attacking American ships at sea. The United States sent a special peace delegation to France, but France tried to extract money from the delegates in exchange for receiving them.
    [text omitted]
    The Alien Act allowed the President to arrest, imprison, and deport "dangerous" immigrants on mere suspicion of "treasonable or secret machinations against the government." If a deported alien returned, the President could imprison him for as long as he thought "the public safety may require."
    Sound strangely familiar? (If it does, then you know something about the USA Patriot Act.)
    The Sedition Act made it unlawful for any person to write, print, publish, or speak anything "false, scandalous and malicious" about the government, either Congress or the Executive, if it was done with the intent to defame or to bring the government "into contempt or disrepute," or to excite the hatred of the people against the United States.
    ==========================================
    Patriot Revolution? Cities From Cambridge to Berkeley Reject Anti-Terror MeasureBy Dean Schabner July 1
    — Cities across the country have been quietly staging a revolt against the USA Patriot Act, saying it gives law enforcement too much power and threatens civil rights.
    Over the last three months, the Massachusetts cities of Cambridge, Northampton and Amherst and the township of Leverett, as well as the town of Carrboro, N.C., all passed resolutions that call the USA Patriot Act a threat to the civil rights of the residents of their communities.
    Congress passed the act in October to give federal investigators sweeping new powers to probe terrorism in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, and soon came under criticism from civil libertarians. The public has been supportive of the measure.
    The five municipalities join Berkeley, Calif., and Ann Arbor, Mich., in taking a strong stance challenging the way the Bush administration wants to pursue its war on terror within the borders of the United States.
    In Cambridge, where the measure passed the city council by a 5-4 margin on June 17, the resolution says in part, "We believe these civil liberties [freedom of speech, assembly and privacy; equality before the law; due process; and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures] are now threatened by the USA Patriot Act."
    "For me, it was that historically there have been attacks on civil liberties in times of war," Councilman Brian Murphy said when asked why he co-authored the resolution. "I think if you look at USA Patriot, this is another example of that."
    The resolutions are largely symbolic, because the local governments have no authority to compel federal law enforcement to comply.
    "One of the recognitions is that there is a supremacy act and that there are limits to what a city can do," Murphy said. "If the FBI chooses to take actions in Cambridge, they're able to do that under the law as it is constituted.
    "We feel it is important that communities send a message that there is opposition to this act," he added.
    House Committee Has Questions
    Even before USA Patriot was passed, the police in Portland, Ore., broke ranks with the Justice Department's war on terror, saying that it would not cooperate with the FBI on investigations of Middle Eastern students in the city, because state law barred police from questioning immigrants who are not suspected of a crime.
    The city council of Boulder, Colo., is considering a resolution similar to the ones passed in the seven other cities, and Denver has also passed a resolution that, while not going as far as the others, still expresses concerns about whether USA Patriot might be implemented in such a way that it could threaten civil liberties.
    At the same time, the House Judicial Committee has sent a request to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft asking him and FBI Director Robert Mueller to respond to 12 pages of questions — 50 in all — about how the act is being implemented and how effective it has been.
    "We plan to schedule a public hearing in the near future to allow further public discussion of these and other issues relating to the Department of Justice's activity in investigating terrorists or potential terrorist attacks," the letter said.
    The letter requested a response no later than July 9.
    Threat or Protection?
    Though the USA Patriot Act was passed by overwhelming margins in both the Senate — 98-1 — and the House of Representatives — 356-66 — the 342-page law has been criticized by civil libertarians and constitutional rights groups as overstepping the bounds of proper law enforcement procedure.
    "This law is based on the faulty assumption that safety must come at the expense of civil liberties," Laura W. Murphy, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington National Office, said in that group's analysis of the law. "The USA Patriot Act gives law enforcement agencies nationwide extraordinary new powers unchecked by meaningful judicial review."
    Mark Corallo, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said that he was unaware of the resolutions being passed by cities around the country, but he said their concerns and criticisms of the law were unfounded.
    "USA Patriot was passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in both the House and the Senate," Corallo said. "The Patriot Act protects civil liberties and is fully within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution."
    The U.S. attorney's office in Boston was also unaware that four cities in the state had approved measures that sought information from federal law enforcement about anti-terror actions being taken in their communities and directed local police not to cooperate with federal agencies if they were asked to do things that violated someone's civil rights.
    After reviewing the Cambridge resolution, Jerry Leone, the assistant U.S. attorney in Massachusetts and the anti-terrorism coordinator in the state, said the city leaders do not understand the Patriot Act.
    "I think some people have formed misconceptions of what the intentions of USA Patriot are," Leone said. "If one is a civil libertarian, I think the first reaction is, 'Hey, that's one more tool for the government to infringe on our rights,' but if you look at the implementation of the law, that's not the case."
    Making Muslims Feel Safe
    In Ann Arbor, though, City Councilwoman Heidi Herrell said that there have been problems with the way the law has been implemented, and that was why the city felt compelled to act.
    "We're very concerned about civil rights and about potential discrimination against members of our community," she said. "We spent a lot of time since Sept. 11 making sure that the Muslim members of our community felt safe."
    She pointed to the ruling by a federal judge in Detroit in April that it was unconstitutional for the Justice Department to require immigration court judges to bar the public and the media from hearings for detainees who have been determined to be of special interest to federal authorities.
    The Detroit ruling came in response to three separate lawsuits asking that hearings for Rabih Haddad, who was arrested in Ann Arbor in December on charges that he had overstayed his tourist visa, be opened.
    "The judge ruled that the hearings had to be open, so it seems like the court agreed with us in that case," she said. "We're not saying that people shouldn't be questioned. We're just concerned about civil rights."
    The Justice Department is appealing the decision, and the Supreme Court has stayed a similar ruling in a New Jersey case to decide the issue.
    Constitution’s ‘Not a Suicide Pact’
    The council in Denver, the largest of the seven cities, adopted the least-strongly worded resolution, and language about not cooperating with federal authorities was removed before it was finally passed, 7-4.
    The resolution says that it "reaffirms Denver's commitment to unbiased policing," and states that the police should continue to adhere to their policy that "no information about political, religious or social views, associations or activities should be collected unless the information relates to criminal activity and the subject is suspected of criminal activity."
    City government officials described it as an affirmation of Denver's commitment to civil rights.
    "We were concerned about the abridgement of free speech because of national security concerns," Councilwoman Kathleen MacKenzie said. "It seemed to us that it was more unpopular than ever to criticize the government or protest for peace, and that was really scary. As awful as we feel about Sept. 11 and as concerned as we were about national safety, we felt that giving up the right to dissent was too high a price to pay.
    "It resonated to us of the McCarthy era and other times," she added, referring to the House Un-American Activities Committee hearings of the 1950s.
    For some, though, even the milder version of the resolution went too far. Councilman Ed Thomas said that by approving it, the council was saying that "Denver would be a haven for terrorists."
    "My opinion was that we have lost our collective minds if we are going to come up with these kinds of motions," he said. "The last time I checked, I believe we are at war."
    He said there were reasons why stricter law enforcement measures have traditionally been taken in times of national emergency or war.
    "The Constitution is not a suicide pact," he said. "I think history will prove this to be folly. I felt that at that time [when the resolution was passed] and I still feel that way. We've lost our collective minds if we're doing this kind of thing."
    In Ann Arbor, Herrell said the mistake would be to respond to terror by compromising the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
    "At times like these, I think our constitutional rights are even more important," she said. "There have been times when we relaxed these things — the McCarthy era, the '60s civil rights struggle, the detention of the Japanese-Americans in World War II. We look back at those times with shame. … I think this will be another time we look back on with shame. That's what I fear."
    ==================================================
    It is reported by Ali (ra) he said the Messenger (saw) said: “Oh ali, if two people come to ask you to judge between them, do not judge to the first one unitl you hear the word of the second one in order to know how to judge”. (Ahmad, Abu Daud)
    --------------
    Imam al Jassas in his book “Ahkam ul Quran” the rules of the Quran. vol.3, p.398 - Umar put in prison people called al-huqiya and ma’n b zaida, because they were false witnesses. Imam Jassas reports in Ahkam ul Quran and Ibn Taymiyya in his book “Al hisba fil Islam” that Umar punished and judged tazir for a scholar who gave false testimony. He shaved his hair, painted his face black, removed some clothes, put him on a donkey backwards and paraded him all day in front of the people.
  • Subject: Lawyer details the new criminal justice system of the U.S.A. Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 14:22:45 EST From: [email_address]
    Michael Ratner is an international human rights lawyer and vice-president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. He has brought numerous suits against the illegal use of military force by the United States Government and specializes in opposing government spying. Mr. Ratner teaches International Human Rights Litigation at Columbia Law School, and is the author of The Pinochet Papers, International Human Rights Litigation in US Courts, and Che Guevara and the FBI.
    ================================================================
    November 20, 2001
    Moving Toward A Police State (Or Have We Arrived?)
    Secret Military Tribunals, Mass Arrests and Disappearances, Wiretapping & Torture
    By Michael Ratner HumanRightsNow.org
    [text omitted]
    THE NEW ANTI-TERRORIST LEGISLATION
    Congress has passed and President Bush has signed sweeping new anti-terrorist legislation, the USA Patriot Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism), aimed at both aliens and citizens. The legislation met more opposition than one might expect in these difficult times. A National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom of over 120 groups ranging from the right to the left opposed the worst aspects of the proposed new law. They succeeded in making minor modifications, but the most troubling provisions remain, and are described below:
    Rights of Aliens
    Prior to the legislation, anti-terrorist laws passed in the wake of the 1996 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma had already given the government wide powers to arrest, detain and deport aliens based upon secret evidence -- evidence that neither the alien nor his attorney could view or refute. The current proposed legislation makes it even worse for aliens.
    First, the law would permit "mandatory detention" of aliens certified by the attorney general as "suspected terrorists." These could include aliens involved in barroom brawls or those who have provided only humanitarian assistance to organizations disfavored by the United States. Once certified in this way, an alien could be imprisoned indefinitely with no real opportunity for court challenge. Until now, such "preventive detention" was believed to be flatly unconstitutional.
    Second, current law permits deportation of aliens who support terrorist activity; the proposed law would make aliens deportable for almost any association with a "terrorist organization." Although this change seems to have a certain surface plausibility, it represents a dangerous erosion of Americans' constitutionally protected rights of association. "Terrorist organization" is a broad and open-ended term that could include liberation groups such as the Irish Republican Army, the African National Congress, or civic groups that have ever engaged in any violent activity, such as Greenpeace. An alien who gives only medical or humanitarian aid to similar groups, or simply supports their political message in a material way could be jailed indefinitely.
    [text omitted]
    Under the new law, the same secret court will have the power to authorize wiretaps and secret searches of homes in criminal cases -- not just to gather foreign intelligence. The FBI will be able to wiretap individuals and organizations without meeting the stringent requirements of the Constitution. The law will authorize the secret court to permit roving wiretaps of any phones, computers or cell phones that might possibly be used by a suspect. Widespread reading of e-mail will be allowed, even before the recipient opens it. Thousands of conversations will be listened to or read that have nothing to do with the suspect or any crime.
    The new legislation is filled with many other expansions of investigative and prosecutorial power, including wider use of undercover agents to infiltrate organizations, longer jail sentences and lifetime supervision for some who have served their sentences, more crimes that can receive the death penalty and longer statutes of limitations for prosecuting crimes. Another provision of the new bill makes it a crime for a person to fail to notify the FBI if he or she has "reasonable grounds to believe" that someone is about to commit a terrorist offense. The language of this provision is so vague that anyone, however innocent, with any connection to anyone suspected of being a terrorist can be prosecuted. We will all need to become spies to protect ourselves and the subjects of our spying, at least for now, will be those from the Mid East.
    ==========================================
    In 1798, the United States almost went to war with France.
    France, angry that we had signed a treaty with England behind its back, began attacking American ships at sea. The United States sent a special peace delegation to France, but France tried to extract money from the delegates in exchange for receiving them.
    [text omitted]
    The Alien Act allowed the President to arrest, imprison, and deport "dangerous" immigrants on mere suspicion of "treasonable or secret machinations against the government." If a deported alien returned, the President could imprison him for as long as he thought "the public safety may require."
    Sound strangely familiar? (If it does, then you know something about the USA Patriot Act.)
    The Sedition Act made it unlawful for any person to write, print, publish, or speak anything "false, scandalous and malicious" about the government, either Congress or the Executive, if it was done with the intent to defame or to bring the government "into contempt or disrepute," or to excite the hatred of the people against the United States.
    ==========================================
    Patriot Revolution? Cities From Cambridge to Berkeley Reject Anti-Terror MeasureBy Dean Schabner July 1
    — Cities across the country have been quietly staging a revolt against the USA Patriot Act, saying it gives law enforcement too much power and threatens civil rights.
    Over the last three months, the Massachusetts cities of Cambridge, Northampton and Amherst and the township of Leverett, as well as the town of Carrboro, N.C., all passed resolutions that call the USA Patriot Act a threat to the civil rights of the residents of their communities.
    Congress passed the act in October to give federal investigators sweeping new powers to probe terrorism in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, and soon came under criticism from civil libertarians. The public has been supportive of the measure.
    The five municipalities join Berkeley, Calif., and Ann Arbor, Mich., in taking a strong stance challenging the way the Bush administration wants to pursue its war on terror within the borders of the United States.
    In Cambridge, where the measure passed the city council by a 5-4 margin on June 17, the resolution says in part, "We believe these civil liberties [freedom of speech, assembly and privacy; equality before the law; due process; and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures] are now threatened by the USA Patriot Act."
    "For me, it was that historically there have been attacks on civil liberties in times of war," Councilman Brian Murphy said when asked why he co-authored the resolution. "I think if you look at USA Patriot, this is another example of that."
    The resolutions are largely symbolic, because the local governments have no authority to compel federal law enforcement to comply.
    "One of the recognitions is that there is a supremacy act and that there are limits to what a city can do," Murphy said. "If the FBI chooses to take actions in Cambridge, they're able to do that under the law as it is constituted.
    "We feel it is important that communities send a message that there is opposition to this act," he added.
    House Committee Has Questions
    Even before USA Patriot was passed, the police in Portland, Ore., broke ranks with the Justice Department's war on terror, saying that it would not cooperate with the FBI on investigations of Middle Eastern students in the city, because state law barred police from questioning immigrants who are not suspected of a crime.
    The city council of Boulder, Colo., is considering a resolution similar to the ones passed in the seven other cities, and Denver has also passed a resolution that, while not going as far as the others, still expresses concerns about whether USA Patriot might be implemented in such a way that it could threaten civil liberties.
    At the same time, the House Judicial Committee has sent a request to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft asking him and FBI Director Robert Mueller to respond to 12 pages of questions — 50 in all — about how the act is being implemented and how effective it has been.
    "We plan to schedule a public hearing in the near future to allow further public discussion of these and other issues relating to the Department of Justice's activity in investigating terrorists or potential terrorist attacks," the letter said.
    The letter requested a response no later than July 9.
    Threat or Protection?
    Though the USA Patriot Act was passed by overwhelming margins in both the Senate — 98-1 — and the House of Representatives — 356-66 — the 342-page law has been criticized by civil libertarians and constitutional rights groups as overstepping the bounds of proper law enforcement procedure.
    "This law is based on the faulty assumption that safety must come at the expense of civil liberties," Laura W. Murphy, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington National Office, said in that group's analysis of the law. "The USA Patriot Act gives law enforcement agencies nationwide extraordinary new powers unchecked by meaningful judicial review."
    Mark Corallo, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said that he was unaware of the resolutions being passed by cities around the country, but he said their concerns and criticisms of the law were unfounded.
    "USA Patriot was passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in both the House and the Senate," Corallo said. "The Patriot Act protects civil liberties and is fully within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution."
    The U.S. attorney's office in Boston was also unaware that four cities in the state had approved measures that sought information from federal law enforcement about anti-terror actions being taken in their communities and directed local police not to cooperate with federal agencies if they were asked to do things that violated someone's civil rights.
    After reviewing the Cambridge resolution, Jerry Leone, the assistant U.S. attorney in Massachusetts and the anti-terrorism coordinator in the state, said the city leaders do not understand the Patriot Act.
    "I think some people have formed misconceptions of what the intentions of USA Patriot are," Leone said. "If one is a civil libertarian, I think the first reaction is, 'Hey, that's one more tool for the government to infringe on our rights,' but if you look at the implementation of the law, that's not the case."
    Making Muslims Feel Safe
    In Ann Arbor, though, City Councilwoman Heidi Herrell said that there have been problems with the way the law has been implemented, and that was why the city felt compelled to act.
    "We're very concerned about civil rights and about potential discrimination against members of our community," she said. "We spent a lot of time since Sept. 11 making sure that the Muslim members of our community felt safe."
    She pointed to the ruling by a federal judge in Detroit in April that it was unconstitutional for the Justice Department to require immigration court judges to bar the public and the media from hearings for detainees who have been determined to be of special interest to federal authorities.
    The Detroit ruling came in response to three separate lawsuits asking that hearings for Rabih Haddad, who was arrested in Ann Arbor in December on charges that he had overstayed his tourist visa, be opened.
    "The judge ruled that the hearings had to be open, so it seems like the court agreed with us in that case," she said. "We're not saying that people shouldn't be questioned. We're just concerned about civil rights."
    The Justice Department is appealing the decision, and the Supreme Court has stayed a similar ruling in a New Jersey case to decide the issue.
    Constitution’s ‘Not a Suicide Pact’
    The council in Denver, the largest of the seven cities, adopted the least-strongly worded resolution, and language about not cooperating with federal authorities was removed before it was finally passed, 7-4.
    The resolution says that it "reaffirms Denver's commitment to unbiased policing," and states that the police should continue to adhere to their policy that "no information about political, religious or social views, associations or activities should be collected unless the information relates to criminal activity and the subject is suspected of criminal activity."
    City government officials described it as an affirmation of Denver's commitment to civil rights.
    "We were concerned about the abridgement of free speech because of national security concerns," Councilwoman Kathleen MacKenzie said. "It seemed to us that it was more unpopular than ever to criticize the government or protest for peace, and that was really scary. As awful as we feel about Sept. 11 and as concerned as we were about national safety, we felt that giving up the right to dissent was too high a price to pay.
    "It resonated to us of the McCarthy era and other times," she added, referring to the House Un-American Activities Committee hearings of the 1950s.
    For some, though, even the milder version of the resolution went too far. Councilman Ed Thomas said that by approving it, the council was saying that "Denver would be a haven for terrorists."
    "My opinion was that we have lost our collective minds if we are going to come up with these kinds of motions," he said. "The last time I checked, I believe we are at war."
    He said there were reasons why stricter law enforcement measures have traditionally been taken in times of national emergency or war.
    "The Constitution is not a suicide pact," he said. "I think history will prove this to be folly. I felt that at that time [when the resolution was passed] and I still feel that way. We've lost our collective minds if we're doing this kind of thing."
    In Ann Arbor, Herrell said the mistake would be to respond to terror by compromising the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
    "At times like these, I think our constitutional rights are even more important," she said. "There have been times when we relaxed these things — the McCarthy era, the '60s civil rights struggle, the detention of the Japanese-Americans in World War II. We look back at those times with shame. … I think this will be another time we look back on with shame. That's what I fear."
    ==================================================
    It is reported by Ali (ra) he said the Messenger (saw) said: “Oh ali, if two people come to ask you to judge between them, do not judge to the first one unitl you hear the word of the second one in order to know how to judge”. (Ahmad, Abu Daud)
    --------------
    Imam al Jassas in his book “Ahkam ul Quran” the rules of the Quran. vol.3, p.398 - Umar put in prison people called al-huqiya and ma’n b zaida, because they were false witnesses. Imam Jassas reports in Ahkam ul Quran and Ibn Taymiyya in his book “Al hisba fil Islam” that Umar punished and judged tazir for a scholar who gave false testimony. He shaved his hair, painted his face black, removed some clothes, put him on a donkey backwards and paraded him all day in front of the people.
  • Subject: Lawyer details the new criminal justice system of the U.S.A. Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 14:22:45 EST From: [email_address]
    Michael Ratner is an international human rights lawyer and vice-president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. He has brought numerous suits against the illegal use of military force by the United States Government and specializes in opposing government spying. Mr. Ratner teaches International Human Rights Litigation at Columbia Law School, and is the author of The Pinochet Papers, International Human Rights Litigation in US Courts, and Che Guevara and the FBI.
    ================================================================
    November 20, 2001
    Moving Toward A Police State (Or Have We Arrived?)
    Secret Military Tribunals, Mass Arrests and Disappearances, Wiretapping & Torture
    By Michael Ratner HumanRightsNow.org
    [text omitted]
    THE NEW ANTI-TERRORIST LEGISLATION
    Congress has passed and President Bush has signed sweeping new anti-terrorist legislation, the USA Patriot Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism), aimed at both aliens and citizens. The legislation met more opposition than one might expect in these difficult times. A National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom of over 120 groups ranging from the right to the left opposed the worst aspects of the proposed new law. They succeeded in making minor modifications, but the most troubling provisions remain, and are described below:
    Rights of Aliens
    Prior to the legislation, anti-terrorist laws passed in the wake of the 1996 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma had already given the government wide powers to arrest, detain and deport aliens based upon secret evidence -- evidence that neither the alien nor his attorney could view or refute. The current proposed legislation makes it even worse for aliens.
    First, the law would permit "mandatory detention" of aliens certified by the attorney general as "suspected terrorists." These could include aliens involved in barroom brawls or those who have provided only humanitarian assistance to organizations disfavored by the United States. Once certified in this way, an alien could be imprisoned indefinitely with no real opportunity for court challenge. Until now, such "preventive detention" was believed to be flatly unconstitutional.
    Second, current law permits deportation of aliens who support terrorist activity; the proposed law would make aliens deportable for almost any association with a "terrorist organization." Although this change seems to have a certain surface plausibility, it represents a dangerous erosion of Americans' constitutionally protected rights of association. "Terrorist organization" is a broad and open-ended term that could include liberation groups such as the Irish Republican Army, the African National Congress, or civic groups that have ever engaged in any violent activity, such as Greenpeace. An alien who gives only medical or humanitarian aid to similar groups, or simply supports their political message in a material way could be jailed indefinitely.
    [text omitted]
    Under the new law, the same secret court will have the power to authorize wiretaps and secret searches of homes in criminal cases -- not just to gather foreign intelligence. The FBI will be able to wiretap individuals and organizations without meeting the stringent requirements of the Constitution. The law will authorize the secret court to permit roving wiretaps of any phones, computers or cell phones that might possibly be used by a suspect. Widespread reading of e-mail will be allowed, even before the recipient opens it. Thousands of conversations will be listened to or read that have nothing to do with the suspect or any crime.
    The new legislation is filled with many other expansions of investigative and prosecutorial power, including wider use of undercover agents to infiltrate organizations, longer jail sentences and lifetime supervision for some who have served their sentences, more crimes that can receive the death penalty and longer statutes of limitations for prosecuting crimes. Another provision of the new bill makes it a crime for a person to fail to notify the FBI if he or she has "reasonable grounds to believe" that someone is about to commit a terrorist offense. The language of this provision is so vague that anyone, however innocent, with any connection to anyone suspected of being a terrorist can be prosecuted. We will all need to become spies to protect ourselves and the subjects of our spying, at least for now, will be those from the Mid East.
    ==========================================
    In 1798, the United States almost went to war with France.
    France, angry that we had signed a treaty with England behind its back, began attacking American ships at sea. The United States sent a special peace delegation to France, but France tried to extract money from the delegates in exchange for receiving them.
    [text omitted]
    The Alien Act allowed the President to arrest, imprison, and deport "dangerous" immigrants on mere suspicion of "treasonable or secret machinations against the government." If a deported alien returned, the President could imprison him for as long as he thought "the public safety may require."
    Sound strangely familiar? (If it does, then you know something about the USA Patriot Act.)
    The Sedition Act made it unlawful for any person to write, print, publish, or speak anything "false, scandalous and malicious" about the government, either Congress or the Executive, if it was done with the intent to defame or to bring the government "into contempt or disrepute," or to excite the hatred of the people against the United States.
    ==========================================
    Patriot Revolution? Cities From Cambridge to Berkeley Reject Anti-Terror MeasureBy Dean Schabner July 1
    — Cities across the country have been quietly staging a revolt against the USA Patriot Act, saying it gives law enforcement too much power and threatens civil rights.
    Over the last three months, the Massachusetts cities of Cambridge, Northampton and Amherst and the township of Leverett, as well as the town of Carrboro, N.C., all passed resolutions that call the USA Patriot Act a threat to the civil rights of the residents of their communities.
    Congress passed the act in October to give federal investigators sweeping new powers to probe terrorism in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, and soon came under criticism from civil libertarians. The public has been supportive of the measure.
    The five municipalities join Berkeley, Calif., and Ann Arbor, Mich., in taking a strong stance challenging the way the Bush administration wants to pursue its war on terror within the borders of the United States.
    In Cambridge, where the measure passed the city council by a 5-4 margin on June 17, the resolution says in part, "We believe these civil liberties [freedom of speech, assembly and privacy; equality before the law; due process; and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures] are now threatened by the USA Patriot Act."
    "For me, it was that historically there have been attacks on civil liberties in times of war," Councilman Brian Murphy said when asked why he co-authored the resolution. "I think if you look at USA Patriot, this is another example of that."
    The resolutions are largely symbolic, because the local governments have no authority to compel federal law enforcement to comply.
    "One of the recognitions is that there is a supremacy act and that there are limits to what a city can do," Murphy said. "If the FBI chooses to take actions in Cambridge, they're able to do that under the law as it is constituted.
    "We feel it is important that communities send a message that there is opposition to this act," he added.
    House Committee Has Questions
    Even before USA Patriot was passed, the police in Portland, Ore., broke ranks with the Justice Department's war on terror, saying that it would not cooperate with the FBI on investigations of Middle Eastern students in the city, because state law barred police from questioning immigrants who are not suspected of a crime.
    The city council of Boulder, Colo., is considering a resolution similar to the ones passed in the seven other cities, and Denver has also passed a resolution that, while not going as far as the others, still expresses concerns about whether USA Patriot might be implemented in such a way that it could threaten civil liberties.
    At the same time, the House Judicial Committee has sent a request to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft asking him and FBI Director Robert Mueller to respond to 12 pages of questions — 50 in all — about how the act is being implemented and how effective it has been.
    "We plan to schedule a public hearing in the near future to allow further public discussion of these and other issues relating to the Department of Justice's activity in investigating terrorists or potential terrorist attacks," the letter said.
    The letter requested a response no later than July 9.
    Threat or Protection?
    Though the USA Patriot Act was passed by overwhelming margins in both the Senate — 98-1 — and the House of Representatives — 356-66 — the 342-page law has been criticized by civil libertarians and constitutional rights groups as overstepping the bounds of proper law enforcement procedure.
    "This law is based on the faulty assumption that safety must come at the expense of civil liberties," Laura W. Murphy, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington National Office, said in that group's analysis of the law. "The USA Patriot Act gives law enforcement agencies nationwide extraordinary new powers unchecked by meaningful judicial review."
    Mark Corallo, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said that he was unaware of the resolutions being passed by cities around the country, but he said their concerns and criticisms of the law were unfounded.
    "USA Patriot was passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in both the House and the Senate," Corallo said. "The Patriot Act protects civil liberties and is fully within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution."
    The U.S. attorney's office in Boston was also unaware that four cities in the state had approved measures that sought information from federal law enforcement about anti-terror actions being taken in their communities and directed local police not to cooperate with federal agencies if they were asked to do things that violated someone's civil rights.
    After reviewing the Cambridge resolution, Jerry Leone, the assistant U.S. attorney in Massachusetts and the anti-terrorism coordinator in the state, said the city leaders do not understand the Patriot Act.
    "I think some people have formed misconceptions of what the intentions of USA Patriot are," Leone said. "If one is a civil libertarian, I think the first reaction is, 'Hey, that's one more tool for the government to infringe on our rights,' but if you look at the implementation of the law, that's not the case."
    Making Muslims Feel Safe
    In Ann Arbor, though, City Councilwoman Heidi Herrell said that there have been problems with the way the law has been implemented, and that was why the city felt compelled to act.
    "We're very concerned about civil rights and about potential discrimination against members of our community," she said. "We spent a lot of time since Sept. 11 making sure that the Muslim members of our community felt safe."
    She pointed to the ruling by a federal judge in Detroit in April that it was unconstitutional for the Justice Department to require immigration court judges to bar the public and the media from hearings for detainees who have been determined to be of special interest to federal authorities.
    The Detroit ruling came in response to three separate lawsuits asking that hearings for Rabih Haddad, who was arrested in Ann Arbor in December on charges that he had overstayed his tourist visa, be opened.
    "The judge ruled that the hearings had to be open, so it seems like the court agreed with us in that case," she said. "We're not saying that people shouldn't be questioned. We're just concerned about civil rights."
    The Justice Department is appealing the decision, and the Supreme Court has stayed a similar ruling in a New Jersey case to decide the issue.
    Constitution’s ‘Not a Suicide Pact’
    The council in Denver, the largest of the seven cities, adopted the least-strongly worded resolution, and language about not cooperating with federal authorities was removed before it was finally passed, 7-4.
    The resolution says that it "reaffirms Denver's commitment to unbiased policing," and states that the police should continue to adhere to their policy that "no information about political, religious or social views, associations or activities should be collected unless the information relates to criminal activity and the subject is suspected of criminal activity."
    City government officials described it as an affirmation of Denver's commitment to civil rights.
    "We were concerned about the abridgement of free speech because of national security concerns," Councilwoman Kathleen MacKenzie said. "It seemed to us that it was more unpopular than ever to criticize the government or protest for peace, and that was really scary. As awful as we feel about Sept. 11 and as concerned as we were about national safety, we felt that giving up the right to dissent was too high a price to pay.
    "It resonated to us of the McCarthy era and other times," she added, referring to the House Un-American Activities Committee hearings of the 1950s.
    For some, though, even the milder version of the resolution went too far. Councilman Ed Thomas said that by approving it, the council was saying that "Denver would be a haven for terrorists."
    "My opinion was that we have lost our collective minds if we are going to come up with these kinds of motions," he said. "The last time I checked, I believe we are at war."
    He said there were reasons why stricter law enforcement measures have traditionally been taken in times of national emergency or war.
    "The Constitution is not a suicide pact," he said. "I think history will prove this to be folly. I felt that at that time [when the resolution was passed] and I still feel that way. We've lost our collective minds if we're doing this kind of thing."
    In Ann Arbor, Herrell said the mistake would be to respond to terror by compromising the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
    "At times like these, I think our constitutional rights are even more important," she said. "There have been times when we relaxed these things — the McCarthy era, the '60s civil rights struggle, the detention of the Japanese-Americans in World War II. We look back at those times with shame. … I think this will be another time we look back on with shame. That's what I fear."
    ==================================================
    It is reported by Ali (ra) he said the Messenger (saw) said: “Oh ali, if two people come to ask you to judge between them, do not judge to the first one unitl you hear the word of the second one in order to know how to judge”. (Ahmad, Abu Daud)
    --------------
    Imam al Jassas in his book “Ahkam ul Quran” the rules of the Quran. vol.3, p.398 - Umar put in prison people called al-huqiya and ma’n b zaida, because they were false witnesses. Imam Jassas reports in Ahkam ul Quran and Ibn Taymiyya in his book “Al hisba fil Islam” that Umar punished and judged tazir for a scholar who gave false testimony. He shaved his hair, painted his face black, removed some clothes, put him on a donkey backwards and paraded him all day in front of the people.
  • The evidence of this article is reflected in the fact that the Messenger of Allah (saw) never appointed two judges for the one single case. He always appointed one single
    Qadi for the one case.
  • Article 71
    This is as far as the one case is concerned, i.e. in the one single court. As for the one country with regard to all the cases, but in two different courts in one area, it is permitted. Because the Judiciary is a deputation on behalf of the Khalifah; thus is similar to the agency where diversity is allowed. Likewise, it is permitted for the Qadis to diversify in the one area. When the disputing parties differed over who should be the Qadi over the case, the plaintiff has the priority and the Qadi he chooses would be the one who looks into the case, because he is seeking justice and this is preponderant over the one from whom justice is sought.
  • The President shall have power to grant pardon, reprieve and respite, and to remit, suspend or commute any sentence passed by any court, tribunal or other authority.
  • Article 48(4) of constitution reads:
    The question whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered to the President by the Cabinet, the Prime Minister, a Minister or Minister of State shall not be inquired into in, or by, any court, tribunal or other authority.
    Article: 248 Protection to President, Governor, Minister, etc
    248. Protection to President, Governor, Minister, etc.-(1) The President, a Governor, the Prime Minister, a Federal Minister, a Minister of State, the Chief Minister and a Provincial Minister shall not be answerable to any Court for the exercise of powers and performance of functions of their respective offices or for any act done or purported to be done in the exercise of those powers and performance of those functions:
    Provided that nothing in this clause shall be construed as restricting the right of any person to bring appropriate proceedings against the Federations or a Province.
    (2) No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President or a Governor in any Court during his term of office.
    (3) No process for the arrest or imprisonment of the President or a Governor shall issue from any Court during his term of office.
    (4) No civil proceedings in which relief is claimed against the President or a Governor shall be instituted during his term of office in respect of any thing done or not done by him in his personal capacity whether before or after he enters upon his office unless, at least sixty days before the proceedings are instituted, notice in writing has been delivered to him, or sent to him in the manner prescribed by law, stating the nature of the proceedings, the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the party by whom the proceedings are to be instituted and the relief which the party claims.
    ---------------------
    The ambassadors and their likes are excluded from this and the rules of Islam would not be implemented upon them, for they would be given diplomatic immunity. This is so because Ahmed reported on the authority of Abu Wa’il who said: “Abdullah said when Ibnul Nawwaha was killed: “This one and Ibnu Uthal had once come to the Messenger of Allah (saw) as envoys of Musaylima the liar and the Messenger of Allah (saw) said to them: “Do you bear witness that I am the Messenger of Allah?” They said: “We bear witness that Musaylima is the Messenger of Allah.” Upon this the Messenger of Allah (saw): “If I were to kill an envoy I would strike your necks.” Since then, a tradition has been established stipulating that the envoy does not get killed. As for Ibnu Uthal, Allah (swt) has taken care of him, as for this one he remained immune until Allah enabled us to slay him now.” This Hadith indicates that it is forbidden to kill the envoys who are dispatched by the Kuffar, and likewise all the other rules. However, this is exclusively applicable upon those who have the capacity of an envoy, such as the ambassador and the “Chargé d'affaires” and the like. As for those upon whom the capacity of an envoy does not apply, such as the Consul and the Commercial Attaché and the like, they would not have any immunity, for they do not have the capacity of an envoy. This matter should be referred to the convention, because it is a terminological expression whose reality should be perceived by way of looking into the convention, and it is part of establishing the Manat (reality) i.e. establishing whether they fit the description of envoys or not
  • This is with regard to the Judiciary of Hisba and the Judiciary that settles the disputes, in such types it is allowed for the Qadi to be a woman. As for the Qadi of Mathalim, he must be a man just like the Supreme Judge, because his job involves judging and ruling, for he passes judgement on the ruler and implement Shari'ah upon him, thus he must be a man, in addition to all other requirements of the Qadi which include the requirement of being Faqih. Moreover, he should also be a Mujtahid because part of the Mathalim into which he looks is the possibility of the ruler ruling by other than what Allah has revealed, namely if he were to rule by a rule that has no Shari'ah evidence, or if the evidence he uses did not agree with the matter at issue; thus this type of Mathlama could only be looked into by a Mujtahid. If he were not a Mujtahid, he would be judging out of ignorance, and that would be forbidden. Hence, in addition to the requirements of the ruler and those of the Qadi, he should be a Mujtahid.
  • The Mazalim (unjust acts) were
    mentioned in the Hadith of the Messenger of Allah (SAW) regarding the fixing of prices where he
    said: "And verily I hope that I will meet Allah Azza wa Jall without having anyone claiming against me
    a Mazlama (complaint) I inflicted on him, be it of blood or funds" as narrated by Ahmad on the
    authority of Anas. This indicates that complaints against the ruler, or the Wali or the civil servants
    should be submitted to the judge of Mazalim, and the Judge of Mazalim would deliver the divine rule
    by way of enforcement.
  • there a Court of Appeal since court proceedings are only undertaken when the evidence is proven to be 100% definite. Any doubt to the evidence then the whole case is thrown out. After proof of the evidence, the judgement is considered the Law of Allah on the issue and cannot be revoked.
    the ruling of the Qadi cannot be revoked, be it by him or by any other Qadi. Abu Bakr judged on certain issues according to his Ijtihad and Omar differed with him, but he did not revoke his rulings. Ali also differed with Omar in his Ijtihad, but he did not rescind his rulings. Ali differed with Abu Bakr and Omar, but their rulings were not quashed. The people of Najran came to Ali and said to him “O Amir of the believers, your book is in your hands and your intercession is by your tongue.” He replied: “Woe to you! Omar was rightly guided and I shall never quash a ruling delivered by Omar.” It has also been reported that Omar has ruled in “Al-Mashrakah” (sharing inheritance) by excluding the brothers by two fathers; then in another case he included them in the share and said: “That was my ruling then and this is my ruling now.”
  • Criminal procedure Code (CrPC) (originally written in 1898) (defines crime and investigation)
    Indian evidence Act of 1872
    Indian evidence Act of 1872
    English decision related to evidence can be relied upon in Pakistan (The Qanun-e-Shahadat 1994 by Dr. C.M. Hanif)
    It is entirely based on English law of evidence (The Qanun-e-Shahadat 1994 by Dr. C.M. Hanif)
    By introducing Article 17 they have changed it become Islamic “Qanun-e-Shahadat”
    Article 3:
    … Court shall determine the competence of a witness in accordance with the qualification prescribed by the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah for a witness, and, where such witness is not forthcoming, the court may take the evidence of a witness who may be available.
  • Transcript

    • 1. Taken from the literature of Hizb ut-Tahrir
    • 2.  Criterion of Justice  Prerequisites for justice  Defining a Crime  Investigation  Process of Conviction  Punishment  Who can Forgive  Judicial immunity  Independence of Judiciary  Qualification of a Judge  Types of Qadhies  Accounting the Ruler  Swift Justice  Judicial rights of non Muslim citizens (Zimmi) & Foreigners  Only Khilafah can provide Justice
    • 3. Devine Human Mind Basis for providing justice
    • 4. Human mind Freedoms Equality Expression PersonalReligion Ownership Same rights and duties for Man & Woman Race Gender Creed
    • 5. The basis of equality can only produce justice if human beings are identical In this case same rights and duties for every human being will produce justice
    • 6. Science has proven that Man and Woman are similar in a lot of attributes but at the same time they differ in many others They differ in terms of physiology, emotions, mental capabilities, hormones, child birth etc Man is unable to precisely identify the commonalities and differences between man and woman and hence is incapable to assign precise rights and duties corresponding to their respective capabilities Man Woman Common Attributes Attributes specific to Men Attributes Specific to women
    • 7. Capitalism gives a simplistic solution to this very complex human problem and declares that man and woman will be considered completely identical and thus will be assigned same rights, duties and roles Asking a weak and a strong pupil of the same class to lift 40Kg weight may be equality but this is not justice given the abilities of the two students Similarly same rights/duties for inherently different genders (man & woman) may be seen as equality but definitely it cannot be seen as justice The West also recognizes these differences and this is why men and woman compete separately in all types of sport
    • 8. In the eyes of Islam and society Man and Woman are equal but they are different and hence must have different roles When Woman happens to be a mother she has authority over man who happens to be his son Man when assuming the role of father and husband has a leading role over his daughter and wife Man Woman Complementary role of man and woman in society
    • 9. Only Allah knows man and woman precisely and hence He alone can assign rights and duties for human being which match their abilities In areas where man and woman have similar abilities their rights and responsibilities are also the same; such as praying, fasting, doing daw’a, giving charity, seeking Jannah by pleasing Allah etc. But the attributes in which man and woman differ, their duties and rights also vary; such as providing for the family, Jihad, ruling, inheritance etc.
    • 10. Once the children are grown up they are allowed to leave their parents at their own and take no responsibility of them under the pretext of “personal freedom”; but is this Justice? Multinationals are allowed to own natural resources which Allah has created for all humans and sell them at inflated prices under the cover of “freedom of ownership” but is this not exploitation of the masses? A man is legally allowed to humiliate or mock Allah, His messenger or Islam on the basis of “freedom of expression” but should this be allowed? Can a Qadiyani or any cult be allowed to propagate falsehood and cause confusion about Islam under the guise of “freedom of religion” A woman is allowed to sell her body by claiming “personal freedom” but is this our idea of a civilized world?
    • 11. Mind cannot provide the correct basis for Justice Only the Creator can provide the correct basis for justice, following which we can create a Just society This inference is completely false that by implementing any system correctly one can serve justice to the people
    • 12. Justice cannot be achieved until the following principles are not built on “just laws” Laws that define a Crime Laws of Investigation Laws related to witnesses and conviction Punishing the guilty as much as he deserves Laws related to forgiveness of the criminal Legal Immunity Independence of Judiciary Qualification of Judges Khilafah Capitalism  Laws related to all the above points are derived from Qur’an and Sunnah  Laws related to above points are legislated by the parliament or by various commissions
    • 13. Justice Punishment Defining the crime Investigation Process of Conviction Who can forgive Capitalism: •Wa’da Maaf Gawah •Even a fasiq witness is acceptable •Circumstantia l evidence acceptable Khilafah: •Witness should be Adl •No concept of “Wada Muaf Gawah” Judicial immunity Capitalism: •Thief jailed for years Khilafah: •Witness should be Adl •Burdon of proof is on •All the above is Haram Capitalism: •President of Pakistan can forgive anything •Plea bargain Khilafah: •Only the “worasa” can forgive a killer •Nobody can forgive a theft, rap, highway robbery Capitalism: •Torture •Harassment • Jail for 1 year on suspicion •Entering homes without warrants •Spying Khilafah: •All the above is Haram Capitalism: •Propagation of Kufr religions •Interest •GST •Private ownership of Oil, gas etc Khilafah: •Islam consider all the above acts as Crimes Capitalism: •President •PM •Governors •Ministers Cannot be brought to court Khilafah: •No citizen is above the law •Ambassadors and envoys enjoy diplomatic immunity. Capitalism: •President can terminate any judge anytime Khilafah: •Khaleefah cannot remove a Qadhi if he is in hearing a case against the Khaleefah Capitalism: •No compulsion to be Adl (not fasiq) Khilafah: •All Qadhies has to be Adl. •In addition Qadhi Mazalim should be a Mujtahid as well Pressure from the ruler Judge’s Qualifications Khilafah • All the laws are derived from and all procedural codes are built upon Qu’an and Sunnah • Without sharii evidence Khaleefah or representatives cannot alter them Capitalism • Laws and procedural codes related to following issues are made either by the parliament or by various commissions
    • 14. 1. Allah (SWT) says: "And judge between them by that which Allah has revealed." [Al-Mai'dah: 49] 2. Criminal procedure Code (CrPC) was originally written in 1898 which defines crime and investigation. 3. Indian evidence Act of 1872 was changed it become Islamic “Qanun-e-Shahadat” by introducing Article 17. Its article 3 still reads as: “Court shall determine the competence of a witness in accordance with the qualification prescribed by the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah for a witness, and, where such witness is not forthcoming, the court may take the evidence of a witness who may be available.”
    • 15. Khilafah Capitalism Allah’s Ahkam define what is a crime and what is permissible 1 The Elite group in the parliament will decide among themselves what should be legalised and what should be declared a crime State cannot impose ban on trade under the pretext of protecting local industries. Hence there is no such crime as “smuggling” Islam sees imposing GST, Toll Tax, Wealth Tax, Income Tax as a Crime Import and export becomes a crime under the title of “smuggling” where as robbery is legalised under the names of GST, Toll Tax, Wealth Tax, Income Tax etc State’s is responsible to protect the aqeedah of the people hence it is not allowed to publicly propagate any creed or ideology other than Islam. Anybody dealing in Riba, or owning a public property secretly will be brought to justice. Propagation of Kufr is legalised under the pretext of freedom of religion. Riba is permissible and private ownership of public property is allowed under freedom of ownership.
    • 16. Khilafah Capitalism Hoarding of wealth is a crime People are free to use their money or hoard them. It is not a crime Drinking, fornicating, not covering in public, mixed gathering etc all are crime Under the strict definition of personal freedom all of these acts are perfectly legitimate. Blasphemy is a crime Salman Rushdie is protected under freedom of expression Jihad and ‘Suicide’ bombing against military targets highest form of reward in Islam Terrorism in the eyes of the West Islam consider maltreatment of prisoners of war, a crime US considers Camp Xray legitimate Only the Creatorknows what is a crime and what is not If the crime is not identified properly then justice can not be served
    • 17. 1. Ibnu Maja reported in his Sunan on the authority of Ibnu Abbas who said: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “If I were to stone anyone without proof I would stone such and such woman.” The Prophet (saaws) said the above due to the fact that the woman was known to be an adulteress, as understood from the words of Ibn Abbas. If torturing was allowed to obtain a confession, that woman would have been tortured to confess. Hence, it is haram to inflict any kind of punishment before proving the guilt. Muslim narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Messenger (SAW) also said: "There are two types of the people of Hellfire I have not seen yet: some people who have whips like the tails of oxes by which they flog the people". 2. It is reported from Ibn Abbas "A man drank till he got intoxicated and was seen drunk by the people in the street. While, he was being taken to the Prophet (saaws), he escaped and entered the house adjacent to the Abbas house. Then Abbas held him. When the incident was reported to the Prophet (saaws), he laughed and said, "He did it?". He ordered no punishment to be carried out." The messenger (saaws) did not implement the punishment because the man did not confess nor was he proven guilty in the front of the Messenger 3. Allah I says: "O you who believe, avoid suspicion as much as possible, for suspicion in some cases is a sin, and do not spy on each other." [Al-Hujurat: 12] He (SAW) also said: "He who peeps into some people's house without their permission, it is allowed for them to gouge out his eye", narrated by Ahmed from Abu Hurairah. The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: “Avoid suspicion, for suspicion is the gravest lie in talk, and do not be inquisitive about one another and do not spy on one another, and do not turn one's back to each other, do not hate each other, and be servants to Allah and be brothers” (narrated by Al- Bukhari and Muslim from Abu Hurairah)
    • 18. Khilafah Capitalism Cannot torture an accused or a suspect 1 Torture in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Guraib is a perfect example how legislation is done in Democracy to legalise crime Cannot send anybody to jail just based on suspicion If somebody is a habitual criminal and there are enough evidences against him then the court can allow his custody for limited time. And once that time expires he is free. He doesn't need to provide bond to free himself. People are picked up only based on suspicion or on a false FIR. People are confined to jails based on laws such as Maintenance of Public Order (MPOs) and colonial Security Act of 1923 A man can be picked up and thrown in jail without any proof and legal proceedings for 1 year  Accused is innocent until proven guilty 2  Spying on the Muslims, watching them, chasing them and looking into their confidential and personal news is forbidden 3 In the US, according to Patriot Law, a person can be imprisoned without any proof just based on suspicion to have links with “terrorists” Laws keep on changing according to what the “Elite Group” likes. Justice can never be served in such a system So called civil liberties and freedoms have already been violated by the champions of the “Free World”. Yes they are “Free” to perpetrate injustice and oppression until the return of the alternative System- the Khilafah
    • 19. 1. It has been narrated by ‘Amr b. Shu’ayb on the authority of his father who narrated from his grandfather that the Prophet (saw) said: ‘The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff and the oath is to be sworn by the defendant.’ Al-Bayhaqi reported with a sound Isnaad (chain of narraters) that the Prophet (saw) said: ‘The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff and the oath is to be sworn by the person who denies.’
    • 20. Khilafah Capitalism The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff the defendant doesn’t have to provided any proof his oath is seen to be enough In general to prove any crime Shari’ah requires two Bayyinat (evidences). A Bayyinah is considered to be: Shahadah (Eye witness) Yameen (Oath) Iqrar (confession) Mustanidat-e-Qatayiah (Documentary evidences) In the US the government doesn’t have to prove anthing to keep a person behind bars except for accusing the person with terrorism charges In the Capitalist system rules continues to change according to the whims and desires of the elite group sitting in the parliament
    • 21. 1. Abdullah b. ‘Umar narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘The testimony of two women is equal to one man.’ Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, ‘Isn't the testimony of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ It is narrated from Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudry that the Messenger of Allah said in a hadith: ‘isn’t the witness of the woman equivalent to half of the testimony of the man? We said, ‘Yes O messenger of Allah.’ 2. ‘Uqbah b. Abi Harith, reported : “that he married Umm Yahya, the daughter of Abu Ihab. A black slave woman came and said: ‘I suckled you and your wife.’ He sad: I mentioned that to the Prophet (saw), but he turned his face away from me. I turned away, then I mentioned it to him. He said: How can you marry her after she (the blach woman) claimed she suckled both of you? So he forbade him from her.) In this hadith, the Prophet (saw) instructed the man to leave his wife based on the testimony of a single woman that she had suckled them. 3. It was reported by Al-Bukhari from Basheer ibn Yasaarclaimed that an Ansari man called Sahl ibn Aby Hatmah told him, “that some of his folk went to Khaiber, and they dispersed there, and found one of them killed. They said to the people amongst whom they found him, you killed our friend. They said, we did not kill, and know who killed. So they went to the Prophet (saw) and said: O Rasool Allah. We went to Khaiber, and found one of us killed. He said: It is a grave sin; it is a grave sin (al-kibr, al-kibr). He said to them: Bring testimonial evidence about his murder. They said: We do not have evidence. He said: Then they give an oath. They sad: We do not accept the oaths of Jews. The Messenger of Allah disliked that his blood becomes unavenged, so he paid his blood money (diyyah), as one hundred camels from the camels of the zakah (sadaqah).” This hadith indicates that the Messenger asked them for evidence about a murder happened amongst the Jews. This is because they sad to him: ‘We went to Khaiber, and found one of us killed’. Though he knew the incident took place in Khaiber, amongst the Jews, and within their tribe, he mentioned the evidence (bayyinah) without specifying that it must be from Muslims, with the presence of the indication (qareenah) that the incident was among the Jews. This indicates that if it came from the Jews he would have accepted it. This is confirmed by his offer to the claimants that Jews take an oath. It came in the narration of Sahl ibn Aby Hatmah; ‘ Thus, Jews releave you by fifty oaths; so they said how can we take oaths of kuffar people.’ The oath is one of the testimonial evidences (bayyinaat). This indicates that, regarding the the bayyinah of jinayaat, the non- Muslim witness is accepted, as well as his oath. 4. Allah (SWT) says: “When death approaches any of you, and you may bequest than take the testimony of two just (A’dl) men from your own folk or two others from outside (non-Muslims)” .
    • 22. Khilafah A Muslim is by default trustworthy hence the witness doesn’t have to prove that he is ‘Adl (trustworthy) rather others have to prove that he is a fasiq or not qualified to be a witness Qualification of Witness  Sane  Mature (Baligh)  Ádl (Opposite of Fa’siq, or somebody who is not generally known as corrupt) A Woman can be a witness in all matters including that of Hudood In general the witness of one woman is half as that of man 1 But in matters where only women have access to, like childbirth, suckling, lineage etc Islam accepts testimony of a single woman as sufficient to pass a judgment 2 Non-Muslims are accepted as witnesses3 unless someone could prove that he is corrupt or not an upright person. His witness is accepted in all matters except Financial matters, Raju’, Divorce and Marriages, Wasiyyat (Will) and Moonsighting 4
    • 23. 1. It is reported by Ali (ra) he said the Messenger (saw) said: “Oh ali, if two people come to ask you to judge between them, do not judge to the first one unitl you hear the word of the second one in order to know how to judge”. (Ahmad, Abu Daud) 2. Allah (swt) says: "So when they fulfil their appointed term, either take them back on equitable terms or part with them on equitable terms, and take for witness two persons from amongst you endued with justice." T.M.Q [65-2]. 3. Imam Jassas reports in “Ahkam ul Quran” and Ibn Taymiyya in his book “Al hisba fil Islam” that Umar punished and judged tazir for a scholar who gave false testimony. He shaved his hair, painted his face black, removed some clothes, put him on a donkey backwards and paraded him all day in front of the people.
    • 24. Khilafah Capitalism A judge should not judge without listening to both the parties 1 Islam gives the defendant the right to defend himself The defendant and the complainant have the right to a lawyer of their own choice In the wake of Oklahoma bombing the US government has wide powers to arrest detain and deport aliens based upon secret evidence -- evidence that neither the alien nor his attorney could view or refute Prisioners at Camp Xray do not have the basic right to a lawyer In the Capitalist system rules continues to change according to the whims and desires of the elite group sitting in the parliament Witness should be Adl (just) 2 No concept of “Wada Muaf Gawah” False witness is punished 3 Even a fasiq witness is acceptable Wa’da Muaf Gawah accepted False witness is not accounted Innocent people are implicated in crimes through false witnesses No justice without correct laws relating to scrutiny of witness
    • 25. Khilafah Capitalism In cases of Hudood any shred of evidence which produces doubt would evade a guilty verdict In cases other than Hudood punishment is pronounced based on Galabat-uz-Zaan (Most probable) Once the verdict is pronounced the judgment is considered the Law of Allah on the issue and cannot be revoked by any other judge Circumstantial evidence are acceptable Scores of innocent people rot in jail for years or are hanged, as the principle of definite proof is not followed in the man-made system No concept of jury. Judgment is not left to people who are ignorant of Shara’i ahkam and evidences In American judicial system common people who are neither lawyers nor judges are made to pass a decision as happened in the infamous O. J. Simpson case in the US How can the matterbe left to incompetent people, ignorant about the law and matters related to legal decision making
    • 26. 1. The evidence of this article is reflected in the fact that the Messenger of Allah (saw) never appointed two judges for a single case. He always appointed one Qadhi for the one case. Besides the Judiciary is conveying the Shari'ah rule for implementation, and the Shari'ah rule with respect to a Muslim is not diverse. It is the rule of Allah and the rule of Allah is one. It is true that the understanding of the rule could be diverse. But with respect to a Muslim in terms of acting upon it, the rule is one and can never be diverse. Hence, whatever the Muslim understands as the Hukam of Allah it becomes the rule of Allah related to him. Any other understanding does not represent the rule of Allah as far as he is concerned, though in his view, it is still a valid Shara’i opinion, provided it is extracted through the process of Ijtihad. When the Qadhi conveys the rule of Allah pertaining to the case, for implementation, this judgment must be one, because it is the conveyance of Allah’s rule for implementation not merely conveying his opinion for an intellectual discourse. This means that in essence it is acting upon the rule of Allah, and the rule of Allah with regard to acting upon it, does not diversify, even if the understanding is diversified. Therefore, it would be wrong for the Qadhi to be more than one since this will diversify the rule of Allah.
    • 27. Khilafah Capitalism The verdict is passed by a single judge based on what he finds to be correct 1 There could be other judges assisting the main judge The majority or minority is not considered There are Double benches and full benches Sometime they contradict each other yet the final decision is based on the majority as happened in Z.A. Bhutto’s case The truthfulness of the matter cannot be gauged by the number of people carry a certain view, ratherit is gauged by the strength of the evidence
    • 28. Khilafah Capitalism The plaintiff has the priority to chose the Qadhi in case there are more than one Qadhies in the specified court because he is the one who is seeking the justice The registrar chooses which judge would hear the case. The cases against the government are automatically funneled to the judges who are known to have inclinations towards the government The powerful elite influence the registrar to send the case to the judge of theirchoice In the Danial Perl case, the government not only moved the court to different location but she also changed the Judge after the case proceeding had already started, to get the desired judgment
    • 29. 1. It is narrated that Mohammed (saw) said that: “to free someone criminal is better than to punish someone innocent.”
    • 30. Khilafah Capitalism The principle of the Punishment System is to, “prevent the punishment as much as possible” 1 Only Allah knows what is a “Just” punishment for a crime. He has divided punishments into four sub categories: Hudood It is the Right of Allah (swt) and no one can forgive. Punishment is already decided by Allah such as in fornication, slandering etc. Al-Jynayaat It is the right of the person and he/she can forgive. The compensation is set by Allah not the person himself, e.g. money equivalent to 100 camels for unintentional killing etc. Man decides what should be a “just” punishment In America various states keep changing the punishment for a murderer. Alcohol was legal then made illegal and then legalized again When justice is not served it doesn’t teach the society a lesson and the crime breads
    • 31. Khilafah Capitalism In matters related to the community and State Allah has left it on the state to adopt a punishment keeping in view the gravity of the issue and its implications: Al-Ta’azir This is considered “the right of the community”. It covers those issues which affect the society in every day life like, shouting in the streets and throwing rubbish onto the street etc. The state adopts the punishment for the crime. Al-Mukhalafat This is the “right of the state”, and it covers the issues which the state enacts such as breaking the speed limit, parking in no parking areas etc... Again, the state will adopt the punishment for the crime. Man decides in these matters as well
    • 32. Khilafah Capitalism The aggrieved party can forgive the criminal without bringing him to court. But if he is brought to court then the charges cannot be dropped and judgment will be passed by the judge. There are few exceptions to this rule e.g. death sentence etc. The plaintiff can withdraw his/her case anytime he/she likes If a person is brought to the court then he will be judged upon No concept of legalised bribery (plea bargain) Plea bargain is allowed The rich gets off the hook since he has money to strike a deal with the government in the shape of plea bargains orbribery etc. People like Nawaz Sharif loot and plunder and then legalize this money by giving a part of it as ransom
    • 33. 1. The ambassadors and their likes are excluded from this and the rules of Islam would not be implemented upon them, for they would be given diplomatic immunity. This is so because Ahmed reported on the authority of Abu Wa’il who said: “Abdullah said when Ibnul Nawwaha was killed: “This one and Ibnu Uthal had once come to the Messenger of Allah (saw) as envoys of Musaylima the liar and the Messenger of Allah (saw) said to them: “Do you bear witness that I am the Messenger of Allah?” They said: “We bear witness that Musaylima is the Messenger of Allah.” Upon this the Messenger of Allah (saw): “If I were to kill an envoy I would strike your necks.” Since then, a tradition has been established stipulating that the envoy does not get killed. As for Ibnu Uthal, Allah (swt) has taken care of him, as for this one he remained immune until Allah enabled us to slay him now.” This Hadith indicates that it is forbidden to kill the envoys who are dispatched by the Kuffar, and likewise all the other rules. However, this is exclusively applicable upon those who have the capacity of an envoy, such as the ambassador and the “Chargé d'affaires” and the like. As for those upon whom the capacity of an envoy does not apply, such as the Consul and the Commercial Attaché and the like, they would not have any immunity, for they do not have the capacity of an envoy. This matter should be referred to the convention, because it is a terminological expression whose reality should be perceived by way of looking into the convention, and it is part of establishing the Manat (reality) i.e. establishing whether they fit the description of envoys or not 2. Article 48(4) of constitution reads: The question whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered to the President by the Cabinet, the Prime Minister, a Minister or Minister of State shall not be inquired into in, or by, any court, tribunal or other authority. Article: 248 Protection to President, Governor, Minister, etc (1)The President, a Governor, the Prime Minister, a Federal Minister, a Minister of State, the Chief Minister and a Provincial Minister shall not be answerable to any Court for the exercise of powers and performance of functions of their respective offices or for any act done or purported to be done in the exercise of those powers and performance of those functions: Provided that nothing in this clause shall be construed as restricting the right of any person to bring appropriate proceedings against the Federations or a Province. (2) No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President or a Governor in any Court during his term of office. (3) No process for the arrest or imprisonment of the President or a Governor shall issue from any Court during his term of office. (4) No civil proceedings in which relief is claimed against the President or a Governor shall be instituted during his term of office…
    • 34. Khilafah Capitalism Nobody is above the law, even the Khaleefah can be brought to court for his personal or administrative actions Ambassadors and envoys enjoy diplomatic immunity 1 According to article 48(4) & 248 of the Pakistani Constitution the following people have judicial immunity and cannot be brought to court, inquired or imprisoned by any authority in disposing of their responsibilities 2 President Prime Minister Governor Chief Minister Federal & Provincial Ministers Minister of State Capitalism gives rise to legalized corruption. No wonder why everybody wants to be a Minster
    • 35. 1. The Khaleefah has the right to look into the Mathalim and he has the right to appoint a Qadhi of Mathalim and he also reserves the right to remove them. Hence in origin it is permitted for the Khaleefah to appoint and dismiss all Qadhies i.e. it is part of the Mubah actions of the Khaleefah. However, if the authority of removing the Qadis of Mathalim remains with the Khaleefah, and other charged with ruling, under all circumstances, then there is a high chance that the Qadhies wouldn’t be able perform there job such as removing the Kahleefah and other people in authority, if found guilty. Since the Qadhies of Mathalim could be removed before they could remove them; they could be even unable to look into the cases of Mathalim tabled against the Khaleefah. Hence, the competence of looking into some of the cases of Mathalim remains stalled or subject to the threat of removal against the Qadhies, and this leads to stalling the Shari'ah rules in one specific area. And the stalling even a single Shari’ah rule is forbidden. Thus, if the competence of removing the Qadis of Mathalim remained with the Khaleefah under all circumstance, this would become a means to the suspension of the Shari'ah rules in a specific aspect, which is Haram. Therefore according to the Shari'ah principle: “The means to Haram is forbidden.”, the Mubah action of the Khaleefah would become forbidden as it would lead to something which is Haram. This principle is deduced from Allah’s (swt) saying :"And do not insult those who call to other than Allah lest they insult Allah out of spite in their ignorance....." . [T.M.Q 6-108] Therefore, the Khaleefah, Muawin Tafweed or the Qadhi al Qudah (the Chief Judge) does not have the right to remove the Qadhi of Mathalim while he is in the process of hearing a case against them.
    • 36. Khilafah Capitalism The Qadhi could not be removed if he is in the process of hearing a case against the Khaleefah, Muawin Tafweed or the Qadhi al Qudah (the Chief Judge) 1 The head of state has the authority to remove the judge any time. The perfect example was Nawaz Sharif’s tussle with the Chief justice Sajjad Hussain Shah In the Khilafah system, Qadhi feels secure and free to serve justice
    • 37. 1. With regards to the Qadhi Hisba and Aamit is allowed for the women to be a Qadhi in these courts. As for the Qadi of Mathalim, he must be a man just like the Supreme Judge, because his job involves judging and ruling, for he passes judgement on the ruler and implement Shari'ah upon him, thus he must be a man, in addition to all other requirements of the Qadi which include the requirement of being Faqih. It is because “People who hand their affairs to a woman shall not succeed.” 2. Moreover, he should also be a Mujtahid because part of the Mathalim into which he looks is the possibility of the ruler ruling by other than what Allah has revealed, namely if he were to rule by a rule that has no Shari'ah evidence, or if the evidence he uses did not agree with the matter at issue; thus this type of Mathlama could only be looked into by a Mujtahid. If he were not a Mujtahid, he would be judging out of ignorance, and that would be forbidden. As the Hadith says “And a man who judged for people with ignorance, he is in hell-fire.” Hence, in addition to the requirements of the ruler and those of the Qadi, he should be a Mujtahid.
    • 38. Khilafah Capitalism All Qadies must have the following necessary conditions for appointment:  Sane  Mature  Muslim  Adl (opposite of fasiq)  Faqih (knowledgeable in Islamic Law)  A non-Muslim could be a judge A judge doesn’t have to be Adl and Faqih to implement British Law in Pakistan For Qadhi Mazalim there are two additional conditions  Male 1  Mujtahid 2 No such conditions in any level of judiciary in Pakistan Qualifications such as Adl, Faqih and Mujtahid are not needed in the current colonial judicial systemof Pakistan
    • 39. 1. Allah (SWT) says: "And judge between them by that which Allah has revealed." [Al-Mai'dah: 49]
    • 40. Khilafah Capitalism All the laws related to Judicial system are derived from Qur’an and Sunnah and all procedural codes are built upon Qu’an and Sunnah Without a shar’i evidence, these laws cannot be altered by neither the Khaleefah nor the representatives, to suit themselves to avoid justice All laws and procedural codes related to judiciary are man made either through parliament or through various commissions etc Pakistani justice system is a legacy of the British Colonial system The Elite group in the parliament is the final authority to alter these laws who themselves are mostly involved in the persecution and injustices with the common people The Qadhi judges based on Qur’an and Sunnah and nothing else1 The Judges have no option but to pass judgement based on what is legislated by the parliament Laws given by Allah are free from any kind of bias hence provide justice where as “Elite Group” will always look for it’s own interest or the interest of the colonialist master Qadhi is forced to rule according to what has been revealed by the Creator and hence the laws and the rights given by the creator to His creations do not change with the whims and desires of the rulers
    • 41. 1. Hisba means: 'Conveying the divine rule for the purpose of enforcing it regarding that which causes harm to the rights of the community.‘ This is highlighted in the Hadith of the heap of food. It has been reported in Sahih Muslim on the authority of Abu Hurayra that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) passed by a heap of food. As he put his hand inside it his fingers got wet, so he said to the vendor: "What is this?" He said: "It was dampened by the rain O Messenger of Allah." He (SAW) said: "Why don't you put it on the top so that people can see it? He who cheats does not belong to me."
    • 42. Khilafah Capitalism There are three types of courts dealing with different issues. No concept of higher or lower courts  Qadhi Mohtasib  Qadhi Aam  Qadhi Mazalim Different levels of courts  Magistrate  District Courts  Session Courts  High Courts  Supreme Courts Qadhi Mohtasib  Deals with crimes committed against the society and violations of the community’s rights such as cheating on the scales, encroachments etc 1  He may not sit in a court or place but he moves around in the society.  He has police officers accompanying him. He judges at the spot and passes judgement and punishment such as fines etc 
    • 43. 1. The evidence for the judge who settles disputes between people, i.e. Qadhi Aam, is derived from the actions of the Messenger of Allah (saw), and from his appointment of Mu'az Ibnu Jabal over an area of Yemen. 2. The Mazalim (unjust acts) were mentioned in the Hadith of the Messenger of Allah (saw) regarding the fixing of prices where he said: "And verily I hope that I will meet Allah Azza wa Jall without having anyone claiming against me a Mazlama (complaint) I inflicted on him, be it of blood or funds" as narrated by Ahmad on the authority of Anas. The evidence for the judge of Mazalim (unjust acts), is derived from Allah (SWT) saying: "O you who believe obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from amongst you. If you dispute about something refer it to Allah and the Messenger." [An-Nisa: 59] Therefore, any dispute between the citizens and the people in authority should be referred to Allah and His Messenger i.e. to the rule of Allah. This necessitates the presence of a judge to give judgment on this dispute, and this is the judge of Mazalim. Evidence is also derived from the action of the Messenger of Allah (saw), for he (saw) appointed Rashid Ibnu Abdullah (ra) as judge of Mazalim.
    • 44. Khilafah Qadhi Aam 1 Settles disputes among the people in transactions and punishments Judges on crimes committed against the state includes Hudood and Ta’zeerat Qadhi Mazalim 2 Judges upon disputes between the State/Rulers and the people Complaints against all judges and civil servants Judges upon conflicts between the Muslims and the State about the interpretation of any Shari'ah texts Can take suo moto action against the State and its machinery
    • 45. 1. The Khaleefah is removed from the Khilafah post in situations where he becomes out of the Khilafah bounds, thus the obedience would not become obligatory. This would be in case if he apostatises, becomes completely insane or falls prisoner in the hands of a powerful enemy from where he cannot deliver himself. However, there are other cases when his removal becomes incumbent but his obedience remains obligatory until he is actually removed through the process laid down by the Shari’ah. This would be the case if he becomes flagrantly Fasiq, becomes partially insane, for any reason is unable to bear the burdens of Khilafah or in case he is experiencing subjugation that prevents him from disposing of the interests of the subjects by his own opinion and within the boundaries of Shari'ah. In such cases he must be removed and should be deliberated in the Mathalim court and nowhere else. 2. 'Ubadah Ibnus-Samit reported: "The Messenger of Allah (SAW) called us and we gave him the Bai'ah (oath of allegiance). Among the injunctions he made binding upon us was to listen and obey to the Ameer in our pleasure and displeasure, in our adversity and prosperity, and giving (others) preference over ourselves, and not to dispute the authority with its people, he said: "Unless you see a flagrant disbelief on which you have clear proof from Allah," narrated by Muslim.
    • 46. Khilafah Capitalism Qadhi Madhalim can take sua moto action against the injustices of the State Can even impeach the Khaleefah if found guilty of crime for which Islam requires his impeachment such as becoming a fasiq, or ruling with kufr etc. 1 According to article 48(4) of the Pakistani Constitution President, Prime Minister, Governors, Federal & Provincial Ministers, cannot be brought to court or inquired by any authority in disposing of their responsibilities Hence an important issue of impeachment of the ruler is not decided on the whims and desires of the people rather one of the most responsible citizen of the society, Qadhi Mazalim, passes a judgement based on rules laid down by the Shari’ah, not on his personal desires orgrudges. The ruling has to be very obvious for which there is a “Clear Daleel” from Qur’an and Sunnah. The whole Ummah is a witness over such a high profile decision, which even keeps the Qahdi Mazalimin checkas well.2
    • 47. Khilafah Capitalism There are four types of crimes in islam:  Qadhi Mohtasib  Qadhi Aam  Qadhi Mazalim Different levels of courts  Magistrate  District Courts  Session Courts  High Courts  Supreme Courts Qadhi Mohtasib  Deals with crimes committed against the society and violations of the community’s rights such as cheating on the scales, encroachments etc 1  He may not sit in a court or place but he moves around in the society.  He has police officers accompanying him. He judges at the spot and passes judgement and punishment such as fines etc 
    • 48. 1. There is no Court of Appeal since court proceedings are only undertaken when the evidence is proven to be 100% definite. The ruling of the Qadhi cannot be revoked, be it by him or by any other Qadhi. Abu Bakr (ra) judged on certain issues according to his Ijtihad and Omar (ra) differed with him, but he did not revoke his rulings. Ali (ra) also differed with Omar (ra) in his Ijtihad, but he did not rescind his rulings. The people of Najran came to Ali (ra) and said to him “O Amir of the believers, your book is in your hands and your intercession is by your tongue.” He replied: “Woe to you! Omar was rightly guided and I shall never quash a ruling delivered by Omar.” It has also been reported that Omar (ra) has ruled in “Al- Mashrakah” (sharing inheritance) by excluding the brothers by two fathers; then in another case he included them in the share and said: “That was my ruling then and this is my ruling now.” When the Qadhi passes judgement in the case, he is in fact putting the rule of Allah into action, thus its execution becomes obligatory. Hence, it must not be quashed at all, because it would be a quashing the rule of Allah, and that is forbidden.
    • 49. Khilafah Capitalism The decision made by the Qadhi is final and there are no appeals to higher courts 1 There are appeals starting from Magistrate to the Supreme court Provides swift and speedy justice. The rightful owner doesn’t have to run fromone court to the other Speedy and free justice discourages corrupt fromcommitting crime The aggrieved party can take the Qadhi to the Madhalim courts if his judgment contradicts definite text in the Qur'an, Sunnah or Ijma'a as- sahabah  or contradicts a true reality The judge’s decision can be over- ruled by the superior court but he is seldom punished for his corruption Keeps the Qadhi in-checkfromcorruption
    • 50. 1. Allah (SWT) says: “And if you judge between people that you judge with justice.” [TMQ: 4-58] Also in His (SWT) says: “And let not the hatred of others to you to make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just, that is next to piety and fear Allah, for Allah is well acquainted with all that you do.” [TMQ: 5-8] It is also reflected in Allah (swt) saying pertaining the judgement between the people of the book: “If you judge, judge with equity between them; for Allah loves those who judge in equity.” [TMQ: 5-42] A Muslim who had killed a Jew was brought to the Messenger of Allah (saw), so he killed him and said: “We are the worthiest in fulfilling our oath.” 2. The Messenger of Allah (saw) approved the drinking of Khamr (alcohol) by the Jews and Christians as well as their rules for marriage and divorce. The Messenger's (saw) approval is a specification for the general evidence. Regarding marriage and divorce, the Messenger's (saw) approval applies only when both mates are Kuffar. In situations where the husband is a Muslim and the wife is a Christian or a Jew, the rules of the Shar'iyah must be implemented on them. It is not possible that the wife is a Muslim and the husband is a Kafir, because such a marriage is invalid by the saying of Allah (swt): "Then send them not back to the unbelievers. They are not lawful (wives) for the unbelievers, nor are the unbelievers lawful (husbands) for them." 3. Islam also outlined that the Zimmi enjoy the same justice we enjoy and that they should abide by the same rules which we abide by. As for abiding by that which we abide by, this is derived from the actions and sayings of the Messenger of Allah (saw). He (saw) used to exact the same punishment upon the Kuffar and the Muslims. The Messenger of Allah (saw) punished a Jew by killing him for killing a woman. A Jewish couple were brought to the Messenger of Allah (saw) because they committed adultery, so he ordered their stoning to death. 4. Allah (swt) says “There is no compulsion in the Deen” T.M.Q [2 -256]. and the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “He who has embraced Judaism and he who has embraced Christianity, they should not be coerced away from their faith.” Hence, any action, which to them is considered as a matter of faith, we should not interfere with them and we should allow them to practise what they believe, even if this were not in our Deen part of Aqeedah matters. Also any action which the Messenger of Allah (saw) allowed them to perform, such as drinking alcohol, and getting married, we should also not interfere with them in regard to these actions.
    • 51. Khilafah Capitalism All people are equal before the Law. The law provides justice to all irrespective of colour, race and creed1 In matters of food, clothing and marriage the non-Muslims are treated according to their religions within the limits allowed by Ahkam Shari’ah 2 In matters related to systems such as economic, social, ruling etc Islam is implemented on all citizens alike 3 Non-Muslims are allowed to follow their own beliefs and worships and they are not forced to accept Islam 4 US has passed discriminatory laws for alien residents such as bugging their phones etc. A Muslim citizen is not allowed to marry more than one wife in the US In certain Capitalist states Muslim women are not allowed to wear Hijab UK law denies entry to under-18 wives Only Islam can protect the rights of the all people living under the authority of the State irrespective of their colour, race, creed and nationality
    • 52. Justice Punishment Defining the crime Investigation Process of Conviction Who can forgive Above the Law Pressure from the ruler Judges Qualifications To provide justice all the above 8 elements have to be built on “just” laws & principles Judicial systemhas a direct relationship with the process of legislation i.e. Ruling System Capitalist System can never serve justice since laws related to justice system are also legislated by the “Elite Group”. As most of them are involved in the persecution of the masses themselves, they would neverlegislate laws and procedures that would bring justice to people Hence to provide justice to the people we will have to establish Khilafah where all the above 8 elements are derived from the sources given to us by the Creator which are neither biased in favorof the poornorthe rich
    • 53. Khilafah oTo implement Islam’s Judicial System we require its corresponding ruling system i.e. the Khilafah. In the Khilafah no one has the authority to change Allah’s laws or abrogated them oDictatorship and Democracy cannot implement Islam’s Judicial System as man is the legislator in both these systems and the powerful can easily change the just laws of Islam in their personal interests to subjugate the rights of the weak and the poor
    • 54. Decision making Legislative Mubah (General issues) Mubah (needing expertise) Economic Ruling Social Judicial Education Foreign Policy The ruler The ruler The ruler
    • 55. Decision making Legislative Mubah (General issues) Mubah (needing expertise) Economic Ruling Social Judicial Education Foreign Policy Elite Group Elite Group Elite Group
    • 56. Decision making Legislative Mubah (General issues) Mubah (needing expertise) Economic Ruling Social Judicial Education Foreign Policy Khaleefah is final authority after discussing with experts People Through their representatives decide based on majority Allah’s Ahkam Are implemented derived from the sources, Qur’an, Sunnah, Ijma us Sahaba Qiyas

    ×