The Concept of Terrorism: A Comparative Study Between Islamic and Western Jurisprudence

The issue of defining terrorism raises many problems, as it encounters a number of difficulties due to the lack of agreement on defining its content and the disagreement regarding the statement of what it is and its essence, because terrorism is a broad term that may have more than one meaning for more than one situation, and it is difficult to limit its dimensions and images. This is due to the mixing of the concept of terrorism as a phenomenon that has a specific role in the political conflict or a pattern of political violence with many other forms of political violence such as rebellions, disobedience and coups, in addition to its mixing with other forms of violence such as organized crime, and even ordinary crimes at times. Not to mention the political and ideological differences in the positions of states and the standard adopted in its description, that the concept of terrorism in the institutional sources differs in its meaning from the meaning of the term terrorism in international law, which shows with it the urgent need to find criteria for defining concepts in Islamic political jurisprudence, which must be applied to Acts of armed violence, which may resemble - in one way or another - in its meaning the term terrorism in Western jurisprudence. The study started from the hypothesis that the meaning of terrorism in Islamic jurisprudence differs from that in the Western concept. The study used the comparative approach to put the differences between the two concepts

Social Justice as a Criterion for the Democracy of the Jordanian Constitution

In this study we discuss the issue of social justice as a basic human requirement in the rule of law and sovereignty. Despite its practical importance as a political principle in the various schools of thought, it remained merely a guiding idea for the legislator, It seeks to follow its guidance in drawing up the general policies of the state, without the state being obligated to intervene positively to enforce them; It was not a matter of constitutional priority and interest in the old constitutions, considering it a political par excellence whose purpose was to restrict and regulate absolute power and to determine and guarantee the missing freedom. Proceeding from the constitutional transformations that the Arab world is witnessing, especially the Kingdom of Jordan, following the revolutions of the Arab Spring, the general nature that these constitutions must establish is the goal of achieving social justice, which presupposes the recognition of people with a range of rights that preserve their human dignity as a matter of immediate implementation of these rights. However, addressing the idea of compulsion and normative democracy in Jordan’s constitution for social justice rights from this perspective appears to be a thorny idea due to the difficulty of setting limits, foundations, or standards for them, because these rights presuppose a positive intervention from the state, and it is an issue related to the financial and economic status of the state, unlike other rights that are generally assumed In general, a negative commitment from the state without incurring financial burdens. So, achieving social justice depends primarily on its material capabilities