The Muslim Conception of International Law and the Western Approach: Difference between revisions

From Wikivahdat
imported>Peysepar
(Created page with "The title is a book, by Mohammad Talaat Ghunaimi, in which the unity of the Islamic world is negatively viewd. The following is a review of the book.<ref>https://www.amazon.co...")
 
imported>Peysepar
No edit summary
Line 4: Line 4:
The traditional doctrine of Islamic law in regard to international re¬lations is well known. The Shari'a includes many excellent provisions about declarations of war, treaties of peace, armistices, diplomatic envoys, negotiations and guarantees of safe conduct. But the fact remains that it divides the world, broadly speaking, into the "Abode of Islam" and the "Abode of 'War," and that it envisages the continuance of intermittent war between them until the latter is absorbed in the former. In the course of such fighting, and in the intervals in be¬tween, many civilities were to be meticulously observed; .... The "Abode of Islam" did not, indeed, consist ex¬clusively of Muslims, for those whose religion was based on a book accepted by Islam as originally inspired and in practice, indeed, those other religions too - were not forced to embrace Islam but only to accept Muslim rule. They were granted the status of dhimmis, were protected in their persons and their property, were allowed to follow their own religion in an unobtrusive fashion, and were accorded the position of essentially second-class citizens. They were also of course, perfectly free to embrace Islam; but for a Muslim to be converted to another faith involved the death penalty.
The traditional doctrine of Islamic law in regard to international re¬lations is well known. The Shari'a includes many excellent provisions about declarations of war, treaties of peace, armistices, diplomatic envoys, negotiations and guarantees of safe conduct. But the fact remains that it divides the world, broadly speaking, into the "Abode of Islam" and the "Abode of 'War," and that it envisages the continuance of intermittent war between them until the latter is absorbed in the former. In the course of such fighting, and in the intervals in be¬tween, many civilities were to be meticulously observed; .... The "Abode of Islam" did not, indeed, consist ex¬clusively of Muslims, for those whose religion was based on a book accepted by Islam as originally inspired and in practice, indeed, those other religions too - were not forced to embrace Islam but only to accept Muslim rule. They were granted the status of dhimmis, were protected in their persons and their property, were allowed to follow their own religion in an unobtrusive fashion, and were accorded the position of essentially second-class citizens. They were also of course, perfectly free to embrace Islam; but for a Muslim to be converted to another faith involved the death penalty.


== “Unity of the Islamic world” as apparently rejected in the book==
==“Unity of the Islamic world” as apparently rejected in the book==
The unity of the imamate is presumably a corollary to the unity of the Islamic world. We have seen that there is no obligatory injunction in the Shari'ah as regards this unity.<ref>Page 207 of the book</ref>
The unity of the imamate is presumably a corollary to the unity of the Islamic world. We have seen that there is no obligatory injunction in the Shari'ah as regards this unity.<ref>Page 207 of the book</ref>


Line 10: Line 10:
As seen in the review, the writer tries to draw a negative picture about Islam in some related aspects and introduce “the unity of the Islamic world” as unnecessary teaching of Islam.
As seen in the review, the writer tries to draw a negative picture about Islam in some related aspects and introduce “the unity of the Islamic world” as unnecessary teaching of Islam.


==Notes=
==Notes==

Revision as of 06:47, 2 August 2022

The title is a book, by Mohammad Talaat Ghunaimi, in which the unity of the Islamic world is negatively viewd. The following is a review of the book.[1]

Review of the book

The traditional doctrine of Islamic law in regard to international re¬lations is well known. The Shari'a includes many excellent provisions about declarations of war, treaties of peace, armistices, diplomatic envoys, negotiations and guarantees of safe conduct. But the fact remains that it divides the world, broadly speaking, into the "Abode of Islam" and the "Abode of 'War," and that it envisages the continuance of intermittent war between them until the latter is absorbed in the former. In the course of such fighting, and in the intervals in be¬tween, many civilities were to be meticulously observed; .... The "Abode of Islam" did not, indeed, consist ex¬clusively of Muslims, for those whose religion was based on a book accepted by Islam as originally inspired and in practice, indeed, those other religions too - were not forced to embrace Islam but only to accept Muslim rule. They were granted the status of dhimmis, were protected in their persons and their property, were allowed to follow their own religion in an unobtrusive fashion, and were accorded the position of essentially second-class citizens. They were also of course, perfectly free to embrace Islam; but for a Muslim to be converted to another faith involved the death penalty.

“Unity of the Islamic world” as apparently rejected in the book

The unity of the imamate is presumably a corollary to the unity of the Islamic world. We have seen that there is no obligatory injunction in the Shari'ah as regards this unity.[2]

Criticism

As seen in the review, the writer tries to draw a negative picture about Islam in some related aspects and introduce “the unity of the Islamic world” as unnecessary teaching of Islam.

Notes