Quick Review: Islamic Law

Islamic law is known as the law of God or the Shari’a. Classically, Islam draws no distinction between religious and secular life. Hence, Shari’a covers not only religious rituals, but also many aspects of day-to-day life, politics, economics, banking, business or contract law, and social issues. The term Shari’a itself, derives from the verb Shara’a, which connects to the idea of spiritual law and the system of divine law. Sharia has certain laws that are regarded as divinely ordained, concrete, and timeless for all relevant situations (i.e. the ban against drinking liquor as an intoxicant).

Shari’a is based on four primary sources: 1) the Quran, 2) the hadith, or tradition, 3) ijma’, or consensus of jurists, and 4) ‘aql, or reasoning (Entessar 1988, 94). The Quran is the foundational source of law for all Shari’a, however, Shi’a Shari’a also places a great deal of weight on the considerations and views of the Imams in the formation of its legal system (Entessar 1988, 94).

Hadith refers to the statements, deeds, and sayings of the Prophet and the Imams recorded and codified by their companions (Entessar 1988, 94). Both ijma’ and ‘aql are considered by some as secondary sources of Shi’a law, with the former delineating the views of the Shi’a scholars who were close companions of the Imams and the latter describing judgments based on pure and practical reason from which religious law can be inferred (Entessar 1988, 94).

Certain laws are extracted based on principles established by Islamic lawyers and judges (Mujtahed; pl. Mujtahedun). In deriving Shari’a law, Islamic lawmakers attempt to interpret divine principles. An Islamic lawyer or judge’s attempt to rule according to Islam law can be described as ruling by Shari’a, it can concurrently be heavily influenced by local customers (urf).

Islamic jurisprudence is called figh (meaning understanding of details) and refers to the interferences about Islamic rules drawn by scholars from the principles divined from Shari’a. Figh is divided into two parts: the study of the sources and methodology (usul figh; roots of the law) and the practical rules (furu figh; branches of the law). Legal scholars hope that Shari’a and figh are in harmony any given cases, but cannot be sure.

The Iranian penal code upholds the four major crime categories of Islamic law: hudud, qisas, ta’zir, and diyat. Hudud crimes include theft, robbery, adultery, drinking alcohol, and rebellion. Punishments for hudud crimes are enumerated in the Quran, which range from stoning to bodily mutilations to executions.

Qisas crimes include murder, manslaughter, and mutilation. These offenses are regarded as acts against the victim. It left to the discretion of the victim’s family if retributive injury should be inflicted on the perpetrator that is exactly equal to that inflicted on the victim (Entessar 1988, 98). Despite the legalization of retribution and vendettas, the Quran and Iranian penal code recommend forgiveness as it is pleasing to God (Entessar 1988, 98).

Ta’zir crimes are not otherwise specified in the Quran or hadith. Punishments for these crimes range from fines to seizure of property and public flogging. The judge is burdened with determining an appropriate punishment considering the temporal culture and public interest (Entessar 1988, 98).

Diyat, or blood money, delineates a form of compensation (i.e. reparation) rather than a category of punishment. In lieu of qisas (retribution), the victim’s family may elect to seek reparations from the perpetrator. The Iranian penal code has codified diyat allocations for numerous crimes (Entessar 1988, 98).

This brief introduction was written by myself and a colleague, Mehrnoosh Karimi Andu.

Published in the following book chapter:

Tavassolian, Nargess, Mohamad Hedayati-Kakhki, Kamiar Alaei and Alexandra Harrington. “Interrogating Suspects in Iran”. In Walsh, D., Oxburgh, G. E., Redlich, A. D., & Myklebust, T. (2015). International Developments and Practices in Investigative Interviewing and Interrogation: Volume 2: Suspects. Routledge.

Being an American citizen just doesn’t have the same perks anymore.

NBC News reported yesterday that that they had in their possession a declassified document that permits the targeted killing of individuals who are part of terrorist groups…even if they’re American citizens.

This Department of Justice (DOJ) “white paper” (click here for the actual document) is a shortened version of a much longer 2010 legal memo that solidifies governmental approval for extrajudicial killings if the individual if “‘an informed, high-level official’ deems him to present a ‘continuing’ threat to the country…even if the target has never been charged with a crime or informed of the allegations against him, and even if the target is not located anywhere near an actual battlefield.”

The ACLU does a great job walking through the paper’s contradictions. They’re also in the throes of a FOIA request regarding the targeted killings of three US citizens in Yemen; legal memos surrounding the al-Awlaki and Khan killings are still secret.

Here is another comprehensive walk-through of the white paper and its implications by David Cole. 

Lawfare thinks you should “calm down about it” and does a great walk-through of what the paper “is and isn’t”.

Obama granted congressional intelligence committees with classified DOJ legal memos regarding the targeted killing of Americans abroad. An ex-Obama aide (and military bigshot) is quoted in the New York Times as thinking that the direction the administration is headed in the context of targeted killings via drones is counter-productive in decreasing the incidence of religious extremism in the Middle East. Here’s the money quote: ““We’re seeing that blowback,” General Cartwright, who is retired from the military, said at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. “If you’re trying to kill your way to a solution, no matter how precise you are, you’re going to upset people even if they’re not targeted.””

Consult these five myths about drones, according to Mark Jacobsen of the German Marshall Fund, to see if you agree.

The House Judiciary held a hearing on “Drones Targeting American Terrorist Suspects Overseas”, which you can view in its entirety here.

Here’s a senatorial blowback (11 to be exact) to the white paper, calling on President Obama to “ensure that Congress is provided with secret legal opinions outlining [his] authority to authorize the killing of Americas in the course of counterterrorism operations”.