Apologists for Sharia Law often claim their law is just as open to interpretation as that of Common Law practised in the UK and Ireland for example.
My understanding is that Common Law is based on precedent and except for extraordinary cases is usually not that open to said interpretation.
So claiming Sharia Law is just as valid as Common Law due to alleged flexible interpretation is erroneous, am I correct?
Other urls found in this thread:
scholarship.law.unc.edu
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
You question common law = meh
You question sharia = off with your head
Sharia Law is actually significantly more flexible than Common Law.
I cannot tell whether this is bait or not. I hope no one on this board is retarded enough to unironically say something like this.
That's the thing. Is that because it is statutory in basis?
Thing is, UK & Ireland, for example, have both common and statutory law. Is law there less flexible?
Saudi Arabia doesn't have statutory law at all, there isn't even a system of judicial precedent, as Wahhabism rejects the imitation of past scholarship (taqlid) in favor of independent reasoning (ijtihad). This means that the judiciary of Saudi Arabia is significantly more flexible that those of the UK and Ireland.
So it would be wrong to say that Sharia Law is similar to both Common and statutory law then?
I ask this because some iman said that sharia law is just like Irish law, they are both open to interpretation.
The fuck are you talking about.
It's just Noun + Predicate = (Resulting)Predicate.
>they are both open to interpretation.
As is all law.
There literally is no single system of law where interpretation doesn't happen and is possible to be skipped.
Except in Dogma.
Which is what Sharia law is.
You idiot.
Dogma (or revealed religious faith) or not, Sharia law, even radical interpretations, is still open to interpretation?
Even in dogma.
"Idiot."
Just like common law, Sharia law is developed primarily by judges (qadis) rather than a body of legislature and it greatly relies on judicial precedent (taqlid). So yes, your imam is right. Read this article if you want to learn more about similarities between Sharia and common law: scholarship.law.unc.edu
Thanks for the helpful information, I'll check out the link.
"Open to interpretation," shouldn't be a selling point for any form of law.
>So claiming Sharia Law is just as valid as Common Law due to alleged flexible interpretation is erroneous, am I correct?
Not erroneous since that implies an honest mistake. It is a lie, simple as that.
>Sharia Law
>Open to interpretation
Sure... If you don't mind being labeled an apostate and having your head removed.
>immutable words of God
>flexible
kill yourself
you too.
On the history board I'd think you'd know about this. You can start by reading this.
>interpretations of religions texts cannot be flexible
Consider suicide
>t. Muhammad Akbar al Baghdadi