The Legal Systems We Live In Today

I'm not a native speaker, so sorry if you see any mistakes.
In my country, Russia, there is civil law. But also we should consider the judgements of high courts like the supreme court and the constitutional court. At the same time, it's not necessary to apply some decisions

I do not trust the system of law in Australia, especially in matters dealing with human rights.

Why is the West drowning in drugs, abortion, gangs, protests, and the disintegration that causes massive destruction to society, while these things do not exist in Muslim countries?
In the Islamic religion, there is a science called Fiqh al-Maqasid (the Jurisprudence of Objectives). The science of Fiqh al-Maqasid is in brief the science that researches the “ends and goals” for which the Sharia has established rulings such as preserving the self, the intellect, and wealth.
The Islamic religion came with five objectives. Preservation of Religion by guaranteeing freedom of worship, preventing strife, and protecting the foundations of faith. Preservation of the Self by prohibiting killing, providing medicine and food, and securing a person’s right to life and a dignified living. Preservation of the Intellect by prohibiting everything that obscures it such as intoxicants and drugs and encouraging knowledge and reflection. Preservation of Progeny or Honor by regulating marriage to protect the family and lineages, and by prohibiting abortion and the commodification of women. Preservation of Wealth by regulating trade, and prohibiting theft, usury, and bribes.
It came from following and examining all the texts of the Quran and the Sunnah. The scholars noticed that any command or prohibition in Islam inevitably serves the interest of one of these five. For example they found that the prohibition of killing plus the obligation of retribution plus the prohibition of suicide all lead to one goal which is preservation of the self.
It went through three historical stages until it was completed. The first stage the Seed began with the early jurists such as Imam al-Shafi’i who spoke about masalih but they were scattered ideas. The second stage Crystallization came with Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni in the 5th Hijri century and he began dividing the interests into levels necessary and needed. The third stage Limitation came with his student Imam al-Ghazali who was the first to limit them to these five religion, self, intellect, progeny, wealth and said his famous statement: Everything that includes the preservation of these five fundamentals is a maslaha and everything that causes the loss of these fundamentals is a mafsada.
The philosophy behind it came from the idea that the Sharia is built upon the interests of the servants. The scholars said it is impossible for God to command something that harms people or prohibit something that benefits them. Based on that they concluded that the compass that moves all rulings is these five.
Contemporary scholars such as Ibn Ashur added other objectives that suit the modern state and society such as the objective of equality and justice as a fundamental goal for governance and law and the objective of public security to ensure the stability of societies.
In short Fiqh al-Maqasid is the scale by which we weigh any action. If the action preserves these fundamentals it is Sharia-compliant and if it destroys them it is corruption even if the one doing it clings to the apparent text of the rulings.
The document stipulates that criminal responsibility is individual meaning the sinner is not taken for his sin except himself. This is an application of the objective of preservation of the self and justice and it is what the West sanctifies in their modern laws. Preventing collective revenge or holding the innocent accountable for the crime of his relative was a rights leap in a tribal environment that was based on vendetta.
The document stipulates that God’s protection is one the lowest of them can grant protection to them meaning that the lowest person in society poor or stranger can give the right of safety to another person and the state is obligated to respect his decision. The objective is giving value to the individual regardless of his social level and this is the objective of human dignity. The West understands this example because they see in it a social contract that precedes the Magna Carta and Jean-Jacques Rousseau by hundreds of years. The Prophet did not apply worship-specific texts on non-Muslims but rather applied supreme human objectives that guarantee justice and safety for all.
The West dealt with drugs as personal freedom at first then as a health problem but Fiqh al-Maqasid considered the intellect a sacred necessity that must not be tampered with. The rule is whatever intoxicates in large quantity its small quantity is forbidden. The prohibition here is not merely devotional but an objective to protect human awareness so that he is able to work produce and distinguish. This connection made drug use in the popular Islamic conscience a human fall and not just a legal violation.
While these matters are viewed in some Western systems as professions or trade in services Fiqh al-Maqasid sees them as destroying the objective of the family. The Sharia did not suffice with prohibiting adultery but also blocked the means leading to it and forbade trading in a woman’s body because the human is honored and is neither sold nor bought. This protected societies from turning women into commercial commodities.
Fiqh al-Maqasid sees in the fetus a self that has the right to life once the soul is breathed into it and it is not permissible to kill it except if it conflicts with the life of the mother application of the rule of the lesser of two evils. This balance prevented abortion from turning into an easy means to get rid of the consequences of casual relationships. The Sharia imposed the harshest punishments for the crimes of hiraba thuggery and organized gangs because they destroy the objective of public security.
The fundamental difference that protected our countries is that Fiqh al-Maqasid puts the interest of the group above the whim of the individual. In the West the individual is free even if he harms himself with drugs for example. In Islam the individual is a brick in a building if he takes drugs or deviates he destroys a family wastes money burdens the state with treatment and scares the neighbors. Therefore intervention here is protection for society.
But the truth must be said although the Maqasid-oriented jurisprudence provided intellectual and spiritual protection contemporary reality witnesses breaches of this protection due to weak legal application in some countries globalization and the Internet which introduced Western lifestyles that clash with these objectives and poverty which may push some to bypass the objectives in search of money such as crimes or trafficking.

Ăla cam cu camăn Lou e cam prost

The United States 🇺🇸 should completely Abolish its Common Law Legal system and replace it with a Civil Law legal system based on Napoleonic Code!

Civil law

What if your too poor to seek legal advice or sue

This is absolutely missing a lot.

Someone had to be first. Who was first hit in their head by a falling tile?

civil law is practiced in my countrie

that's tuff

Thanks a lot. Very useful and easliy presented

Hey Much Cool

Can we talk about how cool these drawings are❤

Love the tutorials tho

Very overyly simplified in terms of German Law! Yes, we do have to principle forms of Law: a) Civil Law, ("Privatrecht"), which deals which disbutes between two private legal entities (e.g. person v. perosn, person v. company) and b) Public law ("Öffentliches RRecht"), which deals with disbutes between the state and a citizen, which includes criminal law (Strafrecht). However in some cases, thos two can mix, like in the example of the video! If the brick fell down from the building due to negligence on the owners side, he could be tried, via public law (Strafrecht) in a criminal court for negligent assault (in German: Fahrlässige Körperverletzung) and then be taken to a civil court (Zivilgericht), where he could be sentenced to compensation etc. .

Mainland China applies civil law but the precedent is also the important reference.

civil is better cause i got arrested 5times for murderes they reduced my time in prison

should you find yourself in a court setting, ask judgeepoo if that all caps NAME he/she is calling out for identity purposes denotes the name of a person or of a living (wo)man.

this video is amazing. Your organisation is incredible!!!!! Thank you for making and sharing!!

Is there even law?😂😂😂

Thanx! 😊

In Lebanon, it's mixed; it's a hybrid system, which means it applies common civil law

But behind both systems Law Merchant is in operation. The court is essentially a business, and in order to ”deal” with men and women they have secretly created a legal fiction through your name which they get you to identify as (joinder). So while you think they are playing checkers, they are actually playing chess. Guess who wins?

civil law is better from Ethiopia

In the U.S., from my pov, they target anyone with a bigger pocket.
Then sue with an outrageous amount and say: "They feel like they had it worse."
Trust me, I know, they did it to a family friend, my uncle, and my grandfather, with in the last seven years...
This was told to me from a customer: "They only care of their misfortune, not the other. Everyone is sue happy to make money without working for it."
FYI: Even with bystanders watching and knowing it wasn't my friend's and family's fault, they were still blamed...
Not being rude, it just makes me feel uneasy knowing the system's rigged...nothing civic nor common...

“Anglo-American legal system” I think one country is trying to take credit for a system they did not invent 😂

Article 3 section 2 constitutional legal jurisdiction have Law, common law as well as other Jurisdictions. If I Have to argue colorably, civil or statutorily in court what article 3 section 2 constitutional legal jurisdiction is that and what legally puts me in that jurisdiction when I should be in law alone?

On average, I prefer Civil Law to Common Law despite being an American.

Madagascar is using civil law and we use a lot of french words while in court due to the French colonization in the last century.