Search results

This study examines the legal codification of nascent markets, specifically, the process of defining and incorporating Islamic banking and organic agriculture within the legal system in Turkey. I find that actors’ priorities differ significantly with respect to formal codification and that the existing legal order and socio-political and economic contexts shape how state and non-state actors influence legislative and regulative action. This study contributes to our understanding of how actors and their ideological commitments and relational concerns affect the legal formulation of new industries.

The purpose of this chapter is to examine how the broader characteristics of Pakistan’s public policies reflect Islamic law, how the financial crime rate has been affected by policy rules, and if the policies do indeed reflect Islamic law, how do they help the process?

It is a qualitative exploratory study where structured interviews have been conducted with experts and practitioners in Islamic Ideological Council and Parliament.

The findings constitute a threadbare discussion of financial crimes which policy takes into account under Islamic law; along with the relevant ramifications and recommendations.

It is suggested that the laws of Pakistan be studied taking Shariah density into consideration. Future research can focus on implementation of laws and policies as a factor improving governance.

This study is pertinent because financial crimes in light of Islamic law and public policy are not discussed in detail in previous research.

This research aims to deal with the law of evidence invoked in Islamic banking cases reported in Malaysia from 1983 to 2015 and determine whether the invoked provisions of the statute in the case law have any conflicts with Islamic law that are threatening the development of Islamic banking in Malaysia.

The methodology used in this research is assessing the implication by studying the provisions of the law of evidence that has been invoked in the reported case law.

It is evident from this research that following are the evident conflicts found in the Evidence Act 1950. In this arena, the following changes are significant for sustaining Islamic banking in Malaysia. Expert opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act 1950 should be amended such that in Islamic banking, under this Act, expert opinion can be sought by the court. The rule and exceptions of parol evidence in Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act 1950 need to be amended such that in Islamic banking matters, anything that is contrary to Shari^cah is mentioned in the contract; this amendment will be an exception to the parol evidence rule on the grounds that the written Islamic contract can be amended or set aside depending on the circumstances of the case.

It is anticipated that this research will assist jurisdictions to understand that even adjective laws applicable to Islamic banking will be harmonized with Islamic law. This is because the prefix Islam attached to the term banking is not merely a namesake, but it means more than that, i.e. all aspects of Islamic banking will be consistent with Islamic law.

The purpose of this study is to critically review the book Islamic Law and International Law by Emilila Powell.

The book review is undertaken from a comparative legal and political science perspective, including arguments and insights from international relations, international law, Islamic law, Islamic culture, religious studies, legal history and European as well as international political history.

While the empirical part of Powell’s work (chapters 5, 6 and 7) shows a methodologically veryc well done approach and at the same time highly interesting insights, both foundation and context show several critical points, in particular, a lack of differentiation with respect to the Western politico-legal tradition, its concepts and the resulting implications.

The book represents an excellent starting point that should inspire new, more intensive as well as exhaustive research on this topic.

The book generates valuable insights for practitioners such as judges at international courts dealing with issues involving so-called Islamic law states, as well as politicians or public service officials in the context of international law and international politics.

As the paper is a comprehensive review of the book based upon comparatively based insights from international relations, international law, Islamic law, Islamic culture, religious studies, legal history and European as well as international political history, the arguments of Powell are analyzed and commented upon in a comprehensive, well-founded and fair way. This should give potential readers a good understanding of Powell’s arguments, inspire a critical lecture of the book and contribute to the important discourse on the connex between international law and Islamic law.

The purpose of this paper is to outline the principles of and legal risk faced by Islamic banking and suggest necessary steps to mitigate them.

The paper examines ideal concept of Islamic banking and its practice. A range of publication is used, however the bulk of it concerns existing practices to provide practical insight on the subject rather than theoretical discourse. The paper is sorted into sections: Introduction, Islamic banking system, existing practices, legal risk and proposed reform.

Islamic banks face risks stemming from legal structure chosen due to the differences between principles of Shariah and law. While compliance to Shariah is paramount for Islamic banks, the law governing Islamic banking transactions may not necessarily give any consideration to Shariah. The paper elaborates legal risk exposed to parties to Islamic banking transactions encompassing the issues of the capacity of the parties to enter into a contract and its enforceability, uncertainty in laws, regulations, and legal actions pertaining to Shariah; as well as the legality of Islamic financial instruments.

The paper reviews relevant laws and regulations related to Islamic banking, however no specific reference to any particular jurisdiction.

This paper is a source of information for those in the Islamic banking industry without legal background or lawyer new to it.

This paper touches upon a new area, the legal risk due to the divergence between the principle of Shariah and law. It offers practical insight into the legal aspect of Islamic banking operations.

This paper explores the experience of “Shari’a” as non-state law in the English courts through a historical analysis of past Islamic finance dispute resolutions (IFDRs). This paper aims to propose a conceivable scenario relating to the law applicable in international commercial contracts in the English courts with the emergence of the Hague Principles 2015.

This paper addresses several issues that have been raised in English case law: doubts about the legal nature of “Shari’a” as non-state law; the limits placed on freedom of choice of “Shari’a” law by the application of a single legal system; and the distinction between application of law and incorporation by reference of “Shari’a” in IFDRs. The paper then analyses the conformity of “Shari’a” with the provisions now used to resolve Islamic finance disputes (trade and investment) in the English courts, using an empirical analysis of The Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions standards.

The paper provides that, in theory, “Shari’a” standards could play a significant role in IFDRs after Brexit, even though a gap persists in practice because the Hague Principles 2015 have not yet been adopted by the English legal system.

The study focuses on the English courts and shows how the IFDRs could be resolved with the emergence of Hague Principles 2015 in the post-Brexit era.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this paper appears to be the first paper to provide a conceivable scenario relating to the future of the IFDRs in the English courts.

The purpose of this paper is to determine whether there is any fundamental difference in the meaning of contract in these two legal systems by analysing some of the essential principles of contract particularly parties’ agreement and consideration.

This paper seeks to investigate the degree of equivalency of the term contract and its Islamic law counterpart “Aqd”. To implement this task, it applies some comparative law techniques to examine certain contractual elements under common law and Islamic law.

The argument that “contract” and “Aqd” are not equivalent is superficial, and it is not well-supported by concrete evidence. The examples used to build this argument are merely limited exceptions to the general principles of contract, and some of them even exist under both legal systems in a similar manner such as “deed” and “Hibah”.

The paper is of interest to legal practitioners and professionals working in cross-cultural or international contexts, as understanding points of conformity and disconformity between “contract” and “Aqd” can help in multiple ways. These may include negotiating international transactions, contract drafting and dispute-resolution processes involving parties from Western and Islamic law-based jurisdictions. It may also aid policymaking and lawmaking processes aiming to harmonize contract principles across different jurisdictions.

The research paper is important for public attitude, as understanding similarities and differences between “contract” and “Aqd” fosters mutual respect, tolerance and cooperation between individuals and communities adhering to different legal systems.

There is a common belief that the term “contract” substantially differs from “Aqd”, and it is by no means safe to presume that every “Aqd” qualifies as a contract. The current research introduces a new point view on the degree of conceptual equivalency of the two terms by showing resemblances in aspects relating to some contractual elements which have always been viewed as an area of divergence rather than convergence.

This paper aims to provide a comparative discussion on silence as a misrepresentation in contractual obligations between common law and Islamic law. The objective of this paper is to – from a legal pluralism point of view – highlight the contrasts between the two traditions and provide recommendations for best practices to achieve fairness and equity among the contracting parties. While common law does not treat silence as conscious misrepresentation, in Islamic law, silence does not constitute affirmative will. This has repercussions for the contracting parties because if future disputes arise, the aggrieved party in Islamic law reserves the option to rescind or nullify the contract – an opportunity not afforded by common law. We have discussed and analyzed the implementations of the different contractual terms, such as fraud, misrepresentation, trickery and deception in relation with Islamic law principles and common law practices. This research is an effort to draw the attention for further development in both Islamic law and common law practices on contractual obligation. The notion of misrepresentation – subset of a broader gamut of fraud – is arguably nebulous in Islamic literature as well. We delve into these nuances and provide examples both from common law and Islamic law precedents and provide recommendations for reform in both traditions.

This paper operates under qualitative methodological framework and uses secondary sources for analysis. Sources include journal databases, review of cases, classical/medieval Islamic scripts, etc.

This paper provides a general comparative study between common law’s principle and practice and Islamic law’s principle to forge a better understanding of fine-tuning existing practice and contribute to the debate on determining the best practices to unify international trade and custom exercise. Common law principle, obviously, holds a historical and traditional reputation as those principles are derived from long years of practice and judicial interpretation. Such historical legal system should accommodate fresh ideas in their repertoire and welcome novel ideas which would positively influence its own practice. This paper affords the freedom to the reader to interpret which general principle is acceptable in terms of contractual obligation.

Previous works exist on the issue of misrepresentation. However, those are mostly explanations of fraud and deceit in Islamic law or common law. The treatment of silence as affirmative will is seldom touched upon. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first attempt at contrasting the treatment of silence in common and Islamic law. They have also advocated pluralistic practices and argued for legal reform whereby both traditions can benefit from each other.

This research aims to explore the possibility of raising and adjudicating Shari'ah issues in Islamic financial contracts before the secular courts with specific reference to the UK and Malaysia.

This is a legal research, and therefore, the paper uses the qualitative research methodology whereby a content analysis, in-depth case study, and library-based research were mainly used.

Shari'ah issues raised before the UK courts, and arguably, before the secular courts in other Western jurisdictions, would not be adjudicated and enforced. English courts, in particular, would decide Islamic financial contracts according to the English law, disregarding Shari'ah issues. Conversely, Shari'ah issues raised before Malaysian civil courts would be duly adjudicated and enforced. The civil court is bound, by the new Central Bank of Malaysia Act 2009, to refer those issues to the Shari'ah Advisory Council of the Central Bank of Malaysia for them to be ascertained. The subsequent ruling of the SAC is binding on the courts.

The Malaysian model for the adjudication of Shari'ah issues in Islamic financial contracts is very effective. Therefore, the research proposes to the parties in international Islamic financial contracts to choose Malaysian law as the law of reference and Malaysian courts as the forum for settlement of disputes. The Malaysian model, being already tested, can also be successfully exported to other countries wishing to introduce or develop Islamic finance.

The purpose of this study is to examine the legal framework for court-annexed dispute resolution in courts with Sharī‘ah jurisdiction in Nigeria, Malaysia and Singapore. The major part of the study is dedicated to propose reforms in the administration of justice system in the courts with Sharī‘ah jurisdiction in Nigeria and the relevance of such reforms to the ongoing reforms in the Middle East and North African (MENA) countries.

This is an integrative literature review, which adopts a comparative approach in analyzing the conceptual framework of amicable dispute resolution in the modern world with particular reference to the Sharī‘ah court.

The findings of this research illustrate the adaptability of the practices in Malaysia and Singapore in the courts with Sharī‘ah jurisdiction in Nigeria and the MENA region.

An exposition of the dispute resolution processes in Islamic law reveals the relevance of these processes in modern reforms of the administration of justice system. The practical implications of this study include the streamlining of the rules and procedures of modern Sharī‘ah courts in post-revolution Arab countries to allow for court-annexed amicable (alternative) dispute resolution initiatives.

As far as it is known, this is the first conceptual study on the court-annexed dispute resolution frameworks of Sharī‘ah courts in three commonwealth jurisdictions.