Justice Requires Laws from Allah Alone
•Download as PPT, PDF•
7 likes•10,992 views
The document discusses principles of justice in Islam versus capitalism. Key points include: - In Islam, justice is derived from the Quran and Sunnah, while in capitalism laws are made by politicians. - Islam defines strict rules for crimes, investigations, convictions and punishments based on Islamic evidence. Capitalism allows practices like torture and circumstantial evidence. - Witnesses must be of high character in Islam, while capitalism accepts any witness. The burden of proof is also on the accuser in Islam. - Rights and duties differ between men and women in Islam based on their natural attributes, while capitalism treats them as identical. - Only the Islamic system of Khilafah can establish true justice by implementing laws
![[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Justice Requires Laws from Allah Alone
Similar to Justice Requires Laws from Allah Alone (20)
Justice Requires Laws from Allah Alone
- 3. Devine Human Mind Basis for providing justice
- 4. Human mind Freedoms Equality Expression Personal Religion Ownership Same rights and duties for Man & Woman Race Gender Creed
- 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
Editor's Notes
- 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 Measure By 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 Measure By 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 Measure By 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.