Islamic Law and Western Ideas:

Islamic law (the Shariah), correctly understood, is very different from Western law. Furthermore, it is impossible to combine the two: any attempt to do so is un-Islamic because it is an imitation of the kuffar and an abandonment of what Allah has decreed.

An Islamic society, an Islamic community, is by definition one where the Shariah is upheld and where it is used to regulate and guide the conduct of the individuals of that society or community. For the Shariah is the Way to Allah, as its very name indicates.

However, due to Western influence in what were once Islamic countries, there have been many attempts, by Muslims to adopt Western legal ideas and concepts. Thus, nominally Islamic societies such as that in Saudi Arabia, have introduced Western-style laws, Courts and punishments, just as they have accepted many fundamental Western legal concepts such as that of treaties involving the extradition of suspects ⁽¹⁾.

Indeed, things have gone so far that many "modernist" Islamic scholars have sought to to "adapt the Shariah" to what is called (by the West) "the modern world" and in the process they have seriously weakened Islam and greatly increased the influence of the West. For the Way of Al-Islam (Dar al-Islam) is complete and perfect, and the opposite of the Way of Ignorance (Dar al-Kufr) which dominates the societies of the West.

It is wrong for Muslims to accept, and submit to, Western laws - and those who enforce them - because such laws are man-made laws based upon man-made ideas, and the Muslim is duty-bound to submit only to Allah: to recognize and obey only the authority of those who are Allah's rightful representatives on Earth. These rightful representatives are those who are honourable and pious, who themselves accept the supreme authority of Allah, and who are acting on His behalf. That is, a Muslim obeys no one unless obeying that person is tantamount to obeying Allah. This fundamental Islamic principle is one of those that has been ignored by those Muslims who have sought and who do seek to "modernize" Islam: that is, who seek to compromise with the kuffar or who seek to imitate the kuffar.

The loyalty which a Muslim gives is a loyalty to Allah and those - such as the Khalifah and his appointed representatives - who are Allah's vicegerents. Thus, because of this, a Muslim has a duty to either live in a genuine Islamic society, governed by the Shariah, or strive to create an Islamic society.
 

Islamic Legal Principles and Ideals:

The Shariah defines types of unlawful behaviour and acts (see, for example, Introduction to Shariah ) as it defines the procedures which should be used to judge the individuals accused of such behaviour and acts.

It is important to understand that in Islamic law there is no concept of arresting a person "on suspicion" of having committed some unlawful act, and detaining that person in some prison. Similarly, the Western legal ideas of "conspiracy",  "incitement" and "extradition" do not exist in Islamic law.

In Islamic law, the victim of an unlawful act, or a blood-relative, was the person responsible for accusing an individual before an Islamic Court. That is, Islamic law in its pure form does not involve nor accept the Western idea of some government or State appointed prosecutor.

Islamic law has a "due process of law". This involves notice of the claim made by the injured or offended person, the right of the accused to remain silent, and the presumption of innocence in a fair and public trial before an honourable, learned and pious Judge (there were no Juries), with both the individual making the claim and the defendant presenting their own cases. What is especially important to note is the weight given to an oath made by the person accused, and the fact that circumstantial evidence is not allowed. In addition, written evidence, the testimony of so-called "experts" and the evidence of documents, is generally inadmissible, since the trial essentially revolves around the character, the honour, of the accused and the accuser, with the Judge assessing these and not abstract "evidence" or someone else's opinion. Since there are no so-called  professional "lawyers" and no Juries, there is none of the clever rhetoric that is such a feature of Western Courts with their lawyers trying to impress both Judge and Jury and trying to outdo their colleagues with impassioned speeches or courtroom tricks.

Also, a confession made by the accused is only admissible if it is made by the accused during a public trial.

At an Islamic trial, the Judge (Qadi) first asked the defendant about the claim or claims made against him. If the defendant denied the claim, the Qadi then ask his accuser to produce evidence. Evidence mostly was the testimony of witnesses known for their good, their Islamic, character. These witnesses are first questioned by the accuser, then the defendant, and if deemed necessary, by the Qadi. If there were no direct witnesses (and the direct is important, since hearsay or rumour is inadmissible) then the accuser could demand that the defendant take an oath, before Allah, that he was innocent.

This principle of the oath is extremely important, for it is reported that the Prophet Muhammad said: "Your evidence or his oath." If the defendant then, on oath, swore he was innocent, the Qadi dismissed the case.
 
 

The Nobility of Islam:

The above principles and ideals, and only them, represent genuine Islamic law. These principles and ideals represent true nobility and true justice, and are in direct opposition to the inhuman, the tyrannical, principles and ideas which have come to dominate Western law. For Islamic law respects, and allows for, the judging of personal character, just as it respects, and allows for, a person to personally defend their character, their honour.

A return to pure Islam - to the way of Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jamaa'h - involves upholding these Islamic legal principles and ideals, and only them. This involves us in accepting the guidance of As Salafus Saalih, the Righteous Predecessors. For the stark truth is that we, as Muslims, have strayed from the perfect way of Islam, especially in recent times when we have accepted or condoned the corruption of Islam by kufr ideas and kufr principles.
 
 
 

(1) While some Muslims maintain that extradition was sanctioned by the Prophet Muhammad, they are mistaken. Their belief is based upon the case of the people who escaped to Medina but who were sent back to Makkah, by the Prophet, because of the treaty the Muslims had with the Qureysh.

However, this treaty specified that anyone who left Makkah without proper permission (from their guardian) had to be returned. This is very different from the extradition which has become such a feature of this modern, Westernized, world. The example set by the Prophet is to do with permission by individuals, and as such, I am struck by its humanity, in contrast with the abstract extraditions of the present with their concern for transgressing an abstract concept (a human-made law) and the over-riding power of the State.