İslam Hukuku Araştırmaları Dergisi

Öz

The book, which is the product of Rudolph Peters's long years of work, selected articles he wrote on the history of Egyptian and Islamic law, especially on the legal order and the actual application of the law. Many reviews have been written about this book, which is the fruit of nearly half-century research. So I will evaluate some points the author overlooked.
Rudolph Peters starts by arguing that Islamic law is insufficient within the framework of modern human rights. He states clearly: Islamic law is not universal. There is no equality in Islamic law. Expressing that Islamic law is not universal, the author limits the application area of this law to the Islamic country. According to him, Muslims who leave the Islamic territories are not subject to sharia, and even if they commit a crime there, they will not be penalized when they return. Islamic law identified non-Muslims outside the Islamic country as enemies. So their lives and property are not under legal protection. While there are exceptions to this, the violation of protections does not entail retaliation or blood money.
However, there seemed to be a fundamental disagreement over the problem between Rudolph Peters and Islamic law scholars. They divided the countries into two parts and defined the country based on Islamic principles as an Islamic country. According to this definition, other countries are an abode of war. It used to refer to countries outside the Islamic country - in today's terms - foreign countries. Muslims outside the Islamic country are also subject to the rules of Islamic law. Islamic law scholars said there is no distinction between being inside or outside the Islamic country in terms of the punishment for the crime committed. Only the Hanafis have argued that no penalty for crimes committed outside the Islamic country since there is no possibility of penalization. The absence of it outside the Islamic country does not mean crime is permissible. Acts such as murder, theft, adultery, and drinking alcohol committed outside the Islamic country are also prohibited.
Rudolph Peters argues that the non-Muslims in an Islamic country have the protection of life and property. However, their legal capacity is limited. What RP expresses here is that non-muslims cannot hold public office. According to him, they cannot be the guardians of Muslims. However, there is a sharp disagreement over their legal capacity between RP and ıslamic law scholars. They point to the desire for an Islamic country in which citizens treat each other as equals. Most of the restrictions existing in social life aim to protect their interests. The most important example of this is the non-Muslims wearing their unique clothes. It is an error to consider this regulation as evidence of restriction of legal capacity. The measure was taken partly as a precaution to determine identity in middle age. There was no means to determine identity -like an identity card. Moreover, most people know that non-Muslim community leaders have made a supreme effort to preserve their traditional clothes.