Suchergebnisse

Preliminary Material -- Introduction /Oussama Arabi , David S. Powers and Susan A. Spectorsky -- 1. Abū Ḥanīfa (d. 150/767) /Yanagihashi Hiroyuki -- 2. Mālik born Anas (d. 179/795) /Yossef Rapoport -- 3. al-Shāfiʿī (d. 204/820) /Joseph E. Lowry -- 4. Saḥnūn born Saʿīd (d. 240/854) /Jonathan E. Brockopp -- 5. Aḥmad born Ḥanbal (d. 243/855) /Susan A. Spectorsky -- 6. al-Khaṣṣāf (d. 261/874) /Peter C. Hennigan -- 7. Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭaḥāwī (d. 321/933) /Nurit Tsafrir -- 8. al-Jaṣṣāṣ (d. 370/981) /Murteza Bedir -- 9. al-Sharīf al-Murtaḍā (d. 436/1044) /Devin J. Stewart -- 10. Ibn Ḥazm al-Qurṭubī (d. 456/1064) /Samir Kaddouri -- 11. al-Sarakhsī (d. 483/1090) /Osman Taştan -- 12. Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111) /Ebrahim Moosa -- 13. Ibn Rushd al-Jadd (d. 520/1126) /Delfina Serrano Ruano -- 14. Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ (d. 544/1149) /Camilo Gómez-Rivas -- 15. Sayf al-Dīn al-Āmidī (d. 631/1233) /Bernard G. Weiss -- 16. Abū Isḥāq al-Shāṭibī (d. 790/1388) /Muhammad Khalid Masud -- 17. Aḥmad al-Wansharīsī (d. 914/1509) /David S. Powers -- 18. Ebu's-suʿud (d. 982/1574) /Colin Imber -- 19. Muḥammad Bāqir al-Bihbihānī (d. 1205/1791) /Robert Gleave -- 20. al-Mahdī al-Wazzānī (d. 1342/1923) /Etty Terem -- 21. Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā (d. 1935) /Mahmoud O. Haddad -- 22. ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Sanhūrī Pasha (d. 1971) /Oussama Arabi -- 23. Ḥasan al-Turābī (1932–) /Aharon Layish -- References -- Index of Qurʾānic verses -- Index of Arabic terms -- General Index.

Abstract
In most countries where Islam is acknowledged as a, or the, source of legislation, abortion is permitted under certain conditions and at certain stages of pregnancy. This article examines some of these laws and argue that they represent a continuation of the logic that governed the views of pre-modern Muslim jurists on abortion, that is, harm aversion. However, these laws also add a 'modernist' twist to that logic – rather than repealing that logic altogether, modernist views on 'rights' and the advancement of medical knowledge and technology have influenced the priorities of Muslim jurists and lawmakers as far as abortion and the issues associated with it are concerned. This influence has furthermore been possible by a conscious selection and blending of pre-modern views to serve modern concerns. In all this, however, harm aversion remains the centrifugal principle, even when the abortion discourse in Muslim countries appears couched in the modernist discourse of rights.

The Muslim jurists opted for a balanced, equitable approach in water resources, particularly the oceans, held and taken care of as a collective, shared, and common asset. They devoted several writings on the humane conduct of hostilities, safety of civilians, seaworthiness of ships and shipwrecks with the help of original sources of Islam and the commandments of Muslim governors. Their principles and practices had remarkably contributed to the law of the sea much before the development of the modern Western international law concerning the oceans. Numerous military expeditions undertaken by Muslims for naval warfare in the Mediterranean Sea (MS) and the Indian Ocean (IO) inspired intellectual engagement of these jurists vis-à-vis port cities and maritime trade routes. The coastal settings even caused differences in opinions among popular schools of thought in Islam. This paper discusses such events in history and outlines issues and principles that emphasized the utility of oceans and shaped the conceptual debate on freedom of navigation in the Muslim world. It tends to suggest that international bodies recognize the customary practices of Muslim littoral states to further refine and develop the modern law of the seas. It recommends that the Muslim countries should develop and promote comprehensive codes in accordance with the maritime principles and practices developed by early Muslim jurists for sustainable exploitation of the marine resources without discrimination.

The objective of this paper is to examine certain normative pre-modern Islamic legal rules regarding marital practices of non-Muslims, including those who later accepted Islam, as stipulated by a variety of jurists in manuals of law representing the positions of multiple legal schools. The rules regarding marital practices are particularly interesting because marriage was a highly (perhaps even the most highly) regulated feature of Islamic law, and thus rules pertaining to it shed light on broader concerns that guided the process of rule-making conducted by jurists. In conducting this analysis, I identify three overarching principles that appear to have guided Islamic marital rules pertaining to non-Muslims: (1) First, I found that there was a large degree of autonomy granted to non-Muslims in practicing their own marital customs, as long as they did not seek intervention from Islamic authorities; (2) Second, I found that most non-Islamic practices of non-Muslims that took place prior to their conversion to Islam did not pose a concern for Muslim jurists; however, practices pertaining to the parties to a marital contract were the subject of concern for Muslim jurists; and (3) Third, I found that jurists were highly concerned with keeping a certain religious hierarchy intact, especially when it came to intermarriage between Muslims and non-kitābīs. I argue that the seemingly liberal laws pertaining to non-Muslims derive from (A) a conception of the world held by jurists that is best understood as akin to imagined political communities, and (B) an interest in ensuring consistency in the law.

A legal maxim in Islamic law states that "The right to inviolability ('isma) is due for humanity (adamiyya)". The right to inviolability includes inviolability ofthe right to (1) life, (2) property, (3) religion, (4) mind (expression), (5) family andprogeny, as well as (6) honor and dignity. Universalist Muslim jurists share thisview from different schools of Islamic law. In particular, all jurists from the H.anaf¯ischool subscribe to this view. From this perspective being human is sufficient tohave human rights regardless of innate, inherited and gained attributes such as sex,religion, race and nationality. This article explores the thought of Muslim juristswho took humanity as the sufficient ground for human rights and the arguments theyused to justify it by deriving from classical Islamic law books. It will also provide ahistorical survey about how this view was implemented in Islamic history from Indiato the Balkans under Islamic law. Following it will discuss the reforms in Islamic lawduring the late Ottoman period (1839–1918). It will conclude by proposing how thepresent Muslim legal and political discourse can be re-connected to this universalisthuman rights tradition to overcome the challenges for human rights in the Muslimworld today.

A legal maxim in Islamic law states that "The right to inviolability ('isma) is due for humanity (adamiyya)". The right to inviolability includes inviolability ofthe right to (1) life, (2) property, (3) religion, (4) mind (expression), (5) family andprogeny, as well as (6) honor and dignity. Universalist Muslim jurists share thisview from different schools of Islamic law. In particular, all jurists from the H.anaf¯ischool subscribe to this view. From this perspective being human is sufficient tohave human rights regardless of innate, inherited and gained attributes such as sex,religion, race and nationality. This article explores the thought of Muslim juristswho took humanity as the sufficient ground for human rights and the arguments theyused to justify it by deriving from classical Islamic law books. It will also provide ahistorical survey about how this view was implemented in Islamic history from Indiato the Balkans under Islamic law. Following it will discuss the reforms in Islamic lawduring the late Ottoman period (1839–1918). It will conclude by proposing how thepresent Muslim legal and political discourse can be re-connected to this universalisthuman rights tradition to overcome the challenges for human rights in the Muslimworld today.

This book presents the positions held by ḥanafite Muslim jurists in South Asia in the 17th century with regard to the coexistence of Muslims and non-Muslims, and, secondly, compares the opinions put forth by these South Asian jurists with those maintained by their counterparts in Central Asia and the Middle East

Muslim-non-Muslim relations have a long and checkered history. The concept of Siyar (Muslim code governing international-interfaith relations) developed by early Muslim jurists, provided the legal basis for coexistence with 'foreignness' and 'foreigners. Yet, the classical norms of Siyar were seldom strictly implemented by Muslim rulers. Thus, Capitulations, governing the presence and movement of foreign merchants and diplomats in the Ottoman empire, increasingly broke with the classical norms of Siyar in their successive incarnations. However, there have been few investigations of how the religious establishment's stance vis-à-vis Capitulations evolved over time. The present study is a modest attempt to fill this gap. The paper departs from essentialist conceptions of Shariah Law, and examines how successive Ottoman jurists interpreted Siyar and accommodated it to the changing political and economic realities. Our investigation bears out the non-essentialist position that Islamic laws have been anchored in empirical realities, pre-Islamic norms, and legalistic traditions.

Islamic antisemitism--Jew hatred in Islam -- Anti-Jewish motifs in the Qur'an and its Exegesis -- Anti-Jewish motifs in the Hadith -- Anti-Jewish motifs in the Sira -- Muslim jurists, theologians, and scholars on the Jews: classical and Premodern Era -- Muslim jurists, theologians, and scholars on the Jews: Modern Era -- The Jews on Arab Muslim lands: historical maps -- The Dhimmi condition for Jews, and Muslim Jew hatred: early Islam through the modern era -- Documents and eyewitness accounts

Abstract
The inability of traditional Shi'a jurisprudents to respond to the challenges in the field of human rights and the rights of religious minorities, which is rooted in the denial of human dignity and the emphasis on religious dignity, has led to the emergence of a new discourse among contemporary Shi'a jurisprudents in Iran in recent years. This group of jurists known as reformist jurists seeks to re-evaluate the jurisprudential laws, re-interpret the Shari'a and find a way out of the religion to reduce the existing conflict with the universal human rights standards. The opinions of this group of jurists, albeit criticized by the traditional scholars, have been welcomed by young clerics. To understand the main aspects of this jurisprudential dispute, two main questions have been considered by the researchers: What are the main principles of human rights in the thoughts of traditionalist and reformist jurists in Iran? And how differently have the reformist jurists conceptualized the subject of human rights? To answer these questions, the impact of traditional jurisprudents on the formulation of the current constitution of Iran is studied and the main differences between the views of traditional and modern jurists are evaluated.