On Modulo AG-groupoids

A groupoid G is called an AG-groupoid if it satisfies the left invertive law: (ab)c = (cb)a. An AG-group G, is an AG-groupoid with left identity e \in G (that is, ea = a for all a \in G) and for all a \in G there exists a' \in G such that a.a' = a'.a = e. In this article we introduce the concept of AG-groupoids (mod n) and AG-group (mod n) using Vasantha's constructions [1]. This enables us to prove that AG-groupoids (mod n) and AG-groups (mod n) exist for every integer n \geq 3. We also give some nice characterizations of some classes of AG-groupoids in terms of AG-groupoids (mod n).Comment: 10 page

Juristic differences over the implementation of qiṣāṣ against a Muslim who kills a non-Muslim

Muslim jurists differ on whether Muslims who murder non-Muslims should be sentenced to death or not. Although Ḥanafī jurists maintain that they should be, most Muslim jurists hold that they should not. Modern scholars such as ʿAwdah, El-Awa and others have discussed the issue. Based on classical and modern fiqh (Islamic law) literature, this article examines the principal arguments used by both groups, concluding that the Ḥanafī opinion is to be preferred because it is based on stronger proofs and conforms more closely to the public interest of contemporary Muslims and non-Muslims

Misunderstanding about the Usuli Maxim "no Ijtihad in the presence of a text" and its clarifications

There is a misunderstanding among some students and scholars of Islamic jurisprudence that if a Qur’anic or Sunna’ic text is available on a particular issue, in order to derive the rule for this issue, neither is ijtihad required nor is it allowed. Rather, this text is sufficient to know the rule and implement it. This misunderstanding goes back to a wellknown usuli maxim: “No ijtihad in the presence of a text.” Using the method of critical analysis, this research intends to remove this misunderstanding and provide the correct understanding about this maxim and issues related to it

Possibility of conducting Ijma` in the contemporary world

Classical Muslim jurists unanimously have provided rulings for many pre-modern religious and mundane issues of Muslims in the past. However, many other classical issues have not been solved this way. Rather, different opinions of different schools of law regarding them have continued until today. On the other hand, different types of new human problems and issues emerge everyday from the onset of modern times. Since Islam is considered to be a complete and continuing code of life, it should be able to provide solutions and rulings for these new issues. Likewise, in order to maintain harmony and unity of the society, there should be some continuous ways to reduce differences among Muslim jurists. Among others, ijma` (consensus) is deemed to be a source of law and way to remove such disagreements and to deduct new rulings for the issues mentioned above. The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether it is possible to conduct ijma` at present times. In order to reach this objective, the researcher would critically discuss the arguments of both opponents and supporters on this possibility using both classical and modern sources. This article would be divided into five sections: a definition of ijma`, opponents’ arguments against conducting ijma` at present, supporters’ arguments for this idea, critical analysis of the arguments, and suggestions for how to conduct an ijma` (consensus) and implement its ruling at present times

Legal maxim “every loan that brings benefit is usury”: its related issues and implementation in financial transactions

A number of Islamic legal maxims are related to transactions (fiqh al-mu‘ᾱmalᾱt) and they could be implemented in Islamic finance and banking. One of these maxims is “Every loan that brings benefit is usury” (Kullu qarḍ Jarra Manf‘atan fahuwa Ribᾱ’). A normal ruling of the Sharῑ‘ah is that if anyone receives loan from a person or a bank, he is supposed to return its exact amount to the moneylender without any increase in it. Any increase, whether it is in the form of money, goods or any other assistance, is considered usury (ribᾱ’) and therefore it is forbidden. However, jurists have disputed over the issue: “If this increase is not mentioned at the time of giving the loan as its condition, and the borrower gives it at the time of paying the loan back to the moneylender or before it.” Some of them maintain that it is lawful, while some others consider it as forbidden. Using descriptive and analytical methods, this paper will discuss the above legal maxim, its proofs, disputes of jurists on its related issues and will try to give preference to the opinion which is stronger based on the strength of the proofs. Then it will strive to discuss implementation of this maxim on some pre-Islamic and contemporary financial transactions in Malaysia

Duties and decision-making guidelines for Shari'ah committee: an overview of AAOIFI

The Sharī‘ah ‘Committee is a board which is independent in directing, reviewing and supervising an Islamic Financial Institution (IFI). It consists of those who are specialised in Fiqh Mu‛āmalāt or those who know it with expertise in other fields. In conjunction with IFIs emergence, the Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAOIFI) was established and has issued numerous standards on accounting, auditing and also governance for IFIs. The researchers intend to review the duties and decision-making guidelines of the Sharī‘ah Committee prescribed by the AAOIFI in 2010. The review undergoes a thorough search and critical analysis of any related content about the topic throughout the whole standard. Some important results are: AAOIFI mentions directly the duties of the Sharī‘ah Committee along with the definition of this Sharī‘ah Committee. These duties are directing, reviewing and supervising. On the other hand, decision-making guidelines are indicated indirectly and they are scattered throughout the AAOIFI governance standards

Officiating the Pervasive Uniformity through Perspicacity and Intellect: an Estimate of the Era of Rightly Guided Caliphs

Office of the executive is always for the ease and comfort of common man and this is the hypothesis which can be built for the very office of the “Caliphate”. Even a cursory study of the era of the pious caliphs of Islam pin-points the fact that early caliphs of Islam adopted an “open-door” policy in order to ease the accessibility of the public to the executive office. They dedicated their mind and soul for the ease and comfort of the public and left no stone unturned in this connection. They used their God-gifted capacities and capabilities in this connection. It is evident from the pages of history that they remained successful in establishing the honor of the office through the rule of law. The study in hand is an estimate of the era of the rightly guided caliphs as a bench-mark in the history of Islam. They set a golden example for their followers and other rulers