Quote:
Originally Posted by Gypsified
Are you equating Fiqh-e-Hanfia with some sort of political system? The excerpt says that the head of the state of the time (how will he be elected, that is another point you are yet to clarify) decided to bestow official recognition upon a legal system devised by an individual heading a council of jurists. It does not answer a single one of my questions. How is that council of jurists formed? How are its members elected? How is the head of the council decided? What is the mechanism of the head of the state adopting the laws of a council? Nothing on any of this.
The second link talks about the international law devised by Muslims in the 8th century and its influence on the future lawmakers of the world. Without answering my questions, it raises further issues. Is the international law devised in the 8th century (when the concept of nationhood, international organizations, treaties, and scores of other factors peculiar to the modern world did not exist) to be implemented in the 21st century?
That is beside the point. First you have to clarify what is the Islamic way of electing the members of the other two houses (if two houses is what Islam prescribes. Does it?).
|
which paras have you been reading?
here are the two again.
Thus came about this historical reality that a system of law devised by a private legislative council became the law of countries and empires on the strength of its merits and the moral prestige of those who framed it. It had also another important consequence in that it opened up for Muslim thinkers new lines for the codification of Islamic Law. The chief legal systems devised later may have differed from it in their methods of deduction and in their results, but they were all inspired by and based on this model.
it is interesting to note that the Muslims as a people always kept legislation (and so also judiciary) separate from the executive. The develop¬ment of Muslim Law as deduced from the Qur'an and the Hadith has always been the work of private savants and jurists. Tradition has insisted that the State should not interfere with this work, much less monopolize it. It is the freedom of juristic judgment which creates conflicting opinions and alternative solutions, and these provide the coming generations with raw material for sound judgment. These conflicting opinions have given rise to different schools of jurisprudence; yet in one's comparative study of international law in Sunnite, Sh'i'ite, and Kharijite schools and their sub-schools one is agreeably surprised that, despite their water-tight divisions, there are practically no differences of vital significance.
if a fake degree holder can sit in the parliament why can't a mulla who has read books for eight years?
if the politician can be elected so can be the member of the council. or you can devise a competitive exam for them
the legislative council can sit as third house of the parliament
you wanted examples of a voluntary legislature, i gave you example of that above. what you think a legislature is anyways?
as far as the two houses are concerned is it farz to have two houses, you can have one or three or four if you like. as for their election they can by voted I do not think Islam has anything to say against that.
the problem with the modern democracy is that it is controlled by capitalists. whether it is a developing nation or a developed nation. you need to tweak it a bit to make it fair to everyone.
i hope that answers your question
if it does not, let me know again
regards