Suchergebnisse

Jarȋmah ta'zȋr are criminal acts that have not been determined by the legal sanctions Personality ', but a stipulation submitted to the judge / government (ulil amri). The intent and purpose of punishment ta'zir is to educate the offender to be a deterrent. Ta'zir bil mȃl is one part of jarȋmah ta'zȋr form of punishment, ie the punishment imposed by the judge / government (ulil amri) against perpetrators jarȋmah (criminal offense), by taking the wealth jarȋmah actors. Although the intent and purpose of the enactment of this sentence is to educate the offender. but it is becoming a dilemma for property taken was not known clearly and definitely on the utilization and usage. This raises a very sharp differences among scholars about whether authorized or imposed such a punishment is motivated ini.Penelitian the discrepancy between theory and practice concepts that occur, and to describe the views of legal scholars ta'zȋr bil mȃl to determine the underlying reasons. This research is a library (library research) that is descriptive qualitative. Collecting data in this study using techniques of documentation. The technique of analysis in this study is qualitative using deductive reasoning. The results showed that the law ta'zȋr bil mȃl by scholars there are differences of opinion are allowed, with a record of property taken was not meant to be privately owned by the judges / government itself, but the treasure was returned to its owner after he promised not reiterates does (repent), and prohibits (absolutely not allowed) to punish the offenders took possessions jarȋmah (ta'zir bil mȃl), because it is not permissible for someone taking someone else's property without legal cause is based, it is an unjust act or false. For the judge / government returned to the intention respectively. Because the intent and purpose of the penalty is intended to educate and deter perpetrators jarȋmah (criminal act) in order not to repeat back in his actions, not menzaliminya.

This is an open access book. Wael B. Hallaq, a renowned sharia scholar, has called sharia an 'episteme' that suffered a 'structural death' following the dawn of modernity in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Hallaq 2009, 15–16). Yet, its resurgent is remarkable across a number of jurisdictional fault-lines: from Muslim-majority nations in Middle East and Southeast Asia to Muslim-minority societies in Western Europe and North America. Across these jurisdictions, the relationship between sharia and state law is central. It includes sharia-state encounters, notably in the form of (state) Islamic law, in the field of family law, which is often asserted as the 'core' or 'last stronghold' of sharia (Moors 2003, 2; Coulson 1969, 115–6), and other substantive areas of law, such as Islamic economics and Islamic philanthropy and also jinayah (Islamic penal law). Regardless of their differences in their own specific context, these areas somehow manage to secure an importance place in the modern days. It involves different loci of authority to interpret, legislate, and enforce sharia, or parts of it that not only flourish but also being challenged around the Muslim world. Equally important are implications of the increasingly unsettled authority of apparently agreed-upon substance of sharia. To contribute on these issues, we would like to invite scholars from diverse discipline including law, anthropology, and Islamic studies, working in both Muslim-majority and Muslim-minority contexts, to present their works in our International Seminar on Sharia, Law, and Muslim Society (ISSLaMS).