'Omar's Law is UNKNOWN in Sweden': Swedish historian to Imran Khan

[Raaz]

They have even forgotten their God and Jesus , how they could know about Umar...

[HI]But they know how to manage the country....
[/HI]
This issue is different than history or religion.

It is we who dont know how to manage ourself or our country..

We dump our garbage in the corners of streets , infront of Hospitals and schools.

Check it out... We push our dust after cleaning our home , just infront of our home or neighbour's home...

[HI]That dust comes back with our own shoes back to our home...
[/HI]
R we brain less ????

 

[zeshaan]

Yeh saree taan IK par hee aakar kion tootaty hay.
Aoor bhee too siasatdaan hain A TO Z joo subhah say laikar shaam tak jhoot boltay rehtay hain unkee kisi baat koo koi kion naheen pakartaa?

 

[zhohaq]

jab khulley aam BONGIYAN mar kar apney aap ko "LEADER" samjho gey, tau phir doosroun ka JAWAB bhi sunn liya karo.

My firend you are being unfair.
Even if you dont care for IK and his politics. Its not fair you throw away 1400 years of History.
Now what exactly Ik Said;

His claim is that the Modern Social Welfare state model (Scandanavian Model) was a European synthesis of Muslim Ideas.
This is a very benign claim. Everthing has basis from things that came earlier. For Example Aljebra from the work of Aljeber or Arabic Advances based on Indian break throughs in Number system, Or Galaleo work on Copernicus model. Eistein work on Lorentz. Newtons formuation of Claculas baed on Liebwitz Ideas and so on.

So the Historical fact is that Charles the XII while in Exile in Turkey came in contact with Ottoman government. In his absence he decided to Estb the Office of Ombudson to take care of things home. This is the basis of the concept of the Separation of Powers.
From the official Website. Use Google translate.
http://www.jk.se/Justitiekanslern.aspx

The Chancellor has very ancient roots. The office was established already in 1713 by King Charles XII through an office order issued in the castle Timurtasch in present-day Turkey, where the king had been brought by the Turkish sultan after the melee at Bender. The office was part of the new arrangement for the central management of the National Executive of cases and was called at this time for "audit office". This was led by a "chief ombudsman" whose functions are outlined in a separate instruction. The information was to have a general supervision over all the "how laws and regulations were complied with, and how each office complied with their obligation," a task that He is, even today, albeit that it is reproduced in a slightly more modern linguistic form. The Authority received its present name in 1719.​

Here are the references you will find Helpful:

FACTA UNIVERSITATIS Series: Law and Politics Vol. 1, No 5, 2001, pp. 571 - 580
LAW AND JUSTICE: TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN
UDC 341.231.14:351.941 Rudolf Machacek

And here is an Extract:

The Role of an Ombudsperson to clarify alleged injustice can be seen as a part of
culture of a country or of socialogical engagement in a society.
In any case it is now part of European tradition that we share with and adopted from
Arabic Tradition.
From this heritage we know that a human being is more than a bundle of inborn
Freedoms and of social demands.
It is, therefore, not really surprising that the fact that law can cause grievance inflicted
by those who apply the law was first found out in religion.
Especially it was the Koran that asked its believers to be just on all walks of life.
Just to relatives, neighbours, and strangers. Just at home and on the market. Justice
was ordered as a last answer on how to live and behave as a good Muslim.

The Arab Muhtasib:
That Justice is of decisive importance led in Arab countries to the creation of a special
organ, the Muhtasib, who was entrusted by the Sultan with a non-legal review of official
actions and behaviour of officials after individual complaints.
The Ombudsman Office in Austria, conducted studies in that area and found the
following:
The Swedish Ombudsman, the first of its kind in Europe, - the so-called "Justizkanzler",
- introduced in 1719, most likely goes back to an experience of the Swedish King Charles
XII, who, after he had lost the battle of Poltava, had to flee as a refugee to Stambul. Here he
learned about the "Diwan-al-Mazalim", a Board of Grievances. The holder of this office was
entitled and obliged to check on complaints of individuals against authorities.
The Islamic Ombudsman appears to go back to the second Kalif, the reformer Omar,
who followed the Prophet in 640 as a guardian of public morals.
Kalif Omar was ambitious to ensure the observance of religious principles - one of
them Justice - in daily life.
In practice, the Muhtasib protected people who were victims of injustice, or of discrimination
and of unfairness done by officials. This worked already even before administrative
systems were introduced.
A "Diwan al-Mazalin" or the "Muhtasib" still exist in a number of Islamic countries.
In Pakistan an Ombudsman called "Wafaqi Mohtasib" was created in 1983.
The "Muhtasib" in Islamic countries seems to be the spiritual father of the Swedish
Ombudsman, introduced by Parliament in Sweden in 1809.

http://facta.junis.ni.ac.rs/lap/lap2001/lap2001-02.pdfhttp://facta.junis.ni.ac.rs/lap/lap2001/lap2001-02.pdf

The landmark study on this subject i.e Orgins of Separation of powers, a corner stone of the modern democratic state was Done by the jurist Pickl(Director General of the Austrian Ombudson Office) in his Landmark Paper.

Pickl, Islamic Roots of Ombudsman Systems, The Ombudsman Journal Number 6/1987, International
Ombudsman Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, CanadaT6G 2HS

Extract From paper:

“Institution to investigate complaints can only be seen in the context of public administration; hence their history is also the history of public administration as a whole. It goes back to the Koran.In the Koran itself the term ‘administration’ is not used, but in many of its verses the principles of political and administrative system are expounded. Justice is one of the basic principles of Islamic Ideology.
Before the times of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) there was no administration in the proper sense of the word. It was the Prophet who first introduced administrative authorities. He appointed governors of the provinces, judges and tax collectors. They were all accountable to the Prophet. We have no report of complaints about these institutions. As essential principles of government and administration, the Prophet bequeathed trust, justice and effectiveness as well the combination of authority with responsibility.
It was Omer, Second Caliph of Islam, who created the Institution of Mohtasib. He enjoyed complete independence and functioned within the framework of an institution called ‘hisbah’. Its role was to ensure the observance of religious principles in daily life. In Egypt this institution existed up to the middle of the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century. An interesting fact in this context is that the institution of ‘hisbah’ and its functions was also adopted by the Cursaders in Jerusalem; they even used the even used the Arab world ‘Mohtasib’ although they changed it into ‘Mathessep’.

 

[awan4ever]

@M Ali Khan , @awan4ever, @Tutor

Below Is Historic Proof Of Omar's Law.
Sweden Denail is Not Acceptable, if they Didt Took an Inspiration By Omars Law,
They may be Enlightened By European or Central Asian States Welfare State System, And We all Know that Europe and These STATES were ruled and Governed by
Muslims and Later They APPLIED and CONTINUED the Practice of Those laws.

If Sweden MADE THIS Model of Present Welfare State, Than CODE THE Authentic Source FIrST.

Policies applied to Jews and Christians in the time of caliph farooq-e-azam(ra)

1. Statements by Syrian Christians in the document known as the Umar Agreement in history presented to Abu Ubayda:

[We imposed these terms on ourselves:] not to withhold our churches from Muslims stopping there by night or day; to open their doors to the traveler and wayfarer; to entertain every Muslim traveler in our customary style and feed him We will not abuse a Muslim, and he who strikes a Muslim has forfeited his rights.

(Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1955), 193-94.)




2. When Hazrat Umar (ra) captured Jerusalem in person in 637 he issued a decree to the people of the city and announced that the places of worship of the People of the Book would not be touched.

3. Hazrat Umars (ra) promise to the Medina Christians contains the principle that None from the Christian faith shall be forced to become Muslims against their will.

4. The article concerning dhimmis in the treaty between Christians and Muslims in the time of Hazrat Umar (ra) is very important.

"If one of them becomes weak or old or suffers from sickness or becomes poor when once he was rich, he and his family will receive assistance from the public purse for so long as they are in Islamic territories."

5. Hazrat Umars (ra) statement in the pre-agreement with the people of Sham (Damascus):

Do not take the lands bestowed by Allah away from people and impose the jizye [capitation tax] according to peoples ability to pay, as set out in the Book of Allah. Do not ask for more if the jizye is paid by them... If we share the lands among ourselves, nothing will remain for their children. If the lands are left to their true owners, then Muslims can live on what they produce. You may impose the jizye on them, but you can never take them captive. You may commit no injustice that will offend or harm them, and you may not take away their property of you have no right to it. You must fulfill the responsibilities you have accepted in their agreements with us. (Majid Khoduri, Islam in War and Peace, Fener Press, Istanbul, 1998, p. 216) __________________

Wow this is so conclusive. I am sure all the Swedish and Scandinavian historians have their heads bowed in defeat. (serious)

 

[mustafvi]

The beginning of welfare state was when our beloved Prophet Muhammad pbuh migrated to Madina and the Muhajirs were given shares from Ansars' houses and businesses. That was the time of economic revolution.

 

[zhohaq]

Wow this is so conclusive. I am sure all the Swedish and Scandinavian historians have their heads bowed in defeat. (serious)

Snark is good. But I wish you would save some of your cynicism for the Marxist revisionist historian. If you ever been unfortunate enough to have met these Marxist Leninist types they are basically quite similar to religious zealots. Marx and Engels are the fountain head of all good in this world. There views are "Scientific" all history and philosophy before and after them a bourgeois discretion. It took me a few years to see through there BS.

Their system of knowledge is complex and with an attractive and complicated jargon (Especially Postmodern New left take on Marxism) much like phrenology, and almost just as useful .

Its a mater on hand is of simple Historical fact which can be demostrated in a pretty straightforward manner. (See my previous post as well).


Pakistan democracy hasnt fluoreshed because the Idea is not properly conceived (Same for most of the Developing world). Our "Elected" Assemblies just represent various ethinic, linguistic, buisness factions. There are no check and balances. NAB/FIA/IB the courts are always used as instruments of projecting power, or as tools of the executive. We have to realise we wont suceed unless Powers are separated and instituition stay in there domains. The Westren world progress is based on this realisation. Once the states its various organs and the citizenry know its rights and duties only then the system may progress. Its Historically understoos that the Parlimentry democracy has its roots in the exile of King Charles XII and his legislative reforms in Sweden.

The History in detail is here, I will extract some relevant quotes from the paper:
A Western King and an Ancient Notion: Reflections on the Origins of Ombudsing C. McKenna Lang Journal of Conflictology

Swedish King Charles XII hatched his idea of an ombudsmanwhile living in Turkey, in exile as a guest of an
Ottoman sultan. “Protection of the people against oppression,
called mazalim, was always a primary duty of the just
sultan…”

(Darling, 2008, p. 510)

In 1976, Edward Kracke noted that,

“the ombudsman in
stitution had incorporated, consciously or not, much of the
heritage of the quests for individual justice found in both
East and West.” (p. 8)

Movement away from Monarchy to Parliamentary Democracy:

In the modern world, the ombuds office is often created
as an administrative reform to increase or improve
governance and accountability. The seeds of this idea
were evident in the 1713 decree. Charles XII faced a level
of broad complexity in ruling a declining empire from
thousands of miles away. In addition, since the Swedish
Estates were operating in his absence, his situation very
likely expedited, in Sweden, the movement away from
absolute sovereignty that was sweeping across Europe.

“Even if the first of Ombudsmen was elected by the
Swedish Parliament, the very essence of the idea of an
Ombudsman – an independent official with the power
to investigate complaints from members of the public
and who can criticize illegal, unfair or improper actions
by public authorities and make recommendations – is
not unknown in other, even older cultures. Within the
Islamic legal system, for example, during the era of the
Abbasids, complaint handling agencies called Diwan
al Mazalim were established.” (p. 2)

Mats Melin, former Swedish Chief Parliamentary
Ombudsman (2006)

Grievance resolution appears
to have been a part of Ottoman administration. The Record
Book of Complaints provides documentation on problems,
petitions and grievances of citizens and casts some
light on a variety of Ottoman Empire grievance procedures
including the mazalim... He(Charles XII) may have been influenced by Turkish
culture. According to Daniel Goffman (2002), the strong
influence of the Ottoman Empire in Europe has been underestimated.
He states that “the Ottoman Empire constituted
an integral component of Europe and that neither the
Ottoman polity nor Europe makes a lot of sense without
the other”

http://goo.gl/y4v6m Link to the Full article PDF

Though not popularly appreciated but the concept of Ombudson had the seeds of modern parlimentry democracy. Once separation of powers and oversight was in effect other democratic rights followed.

The concept of the ombudsman evolved during the Swedish enlightenment (1719-72) where democracy, humanitarianism and individual liberty were emphasized against state absolutism, injustice and abuse or misuse of public power (Caiden, 1983). The surge of democratic values placed prime importance upon the personal responsibility of officials towards their citizens.

Kirchheiner H.H. “The Ideological Foundation of the Ombudsman Institution”. Ch.2, p.23.

 

[mrk123]

I don't know if the above was directed at me. In any case consider the following:

1. Ibne Khaldoon was so sarcastic toward the Arabs that he is considered by many to be Agnostic. Another telling sign is that his social theories are based on a natural order free from any divine intervention or divine design.
2. Ibne Khaldoon's work is not essentially the result of his being Muslim. The line of argument (A) which I pointed out earlier argues that Greek rationality has this effect on Muslim scholars otherwise they had no direction from their religion.

I am of the opinion that Muslims themselves brought this disaster on their heads, they alienated the Muslim intellectuals who had the vision to lead this nation anywhere and simply ridiculed the notion that other nations can possibly become strong enough to control them. One still gets the lame theories of how West will destroy itself due to their sins, how Muslims had the real talent but couldn't get anywhere due to their leaders and Jews and how the world is shivering with the thought of rise of Islam. Unless Muslims own up to their own failures I don't see them getting anywhere. Allah is just and God of all, we should not expect like Jews that we are very special and will always prevail (a cursory study of Jewish history can tell how much they had to suffer).

Completely agree with you. I think that this is a futile discussion. Humans have this urge to improve themselves and the environment around them. Most religions and belief systems just manifest this quest. All of this has to happen in an atmosphere conducive to this kind of evolution. Unfortunately we have not had this environment available to us for the last 4-500 years. I think most of it has been said here already - we live in the past and think that anything good that's seen around the world was somehow a contribution from the Muslims. I think that all religions in essence should have universal appeal. Abrahamic religions have a continuous chain and the social dogma and teachings are pretty much the same for all of them with slight differences here and there.

I agree with you that there is this false sense of entitlement among muslims that since we are supposed to be the last of the Abrahamic religions we will one day automagically dominate the world. I don't even know what dominating the world means really. I don't really buy the notion that muslims did dominate the world - if few kings rulings the world is the concept of muslims domination then I am not sure I am ready to consider that as domination of Islam.

For rest of the members here is a golden quote from Ibe Khaldoon (thanks to wiki) ""an institution which prevents injustice other than such as it commits itself" See how this fits perfectly on Pakistan today. Armed groups were created on basis of Jihad, sectarian conflicts and regional politics without thinking for a second that these groups are a power structure which will challenge the writ of government sooner or later. Government must have a monopoly on violence for a society to operate, ideally the intellectual segment keeps an check on Govt so it does not misuse its monopoly. The tables have turned armed groups now seem to enjoy this monopoly on violence where Govt is mostly seen begging for its writ.

This is a gem of a quote from Khaldun. I am not even sure if we can even characterize what we have in Pakistan as a government - its a cabal at best and then you take out the part about 'preventing any injustice' and thats the government of pakistan for you.

 

[UKPakistani]

Sweden has the concept of Ombudsman and there is/was a supreme ombudsman

Ombudsman the word : It originates from Old norse

Long ago in Sweden The Supreme Ombudsman, was the Chancellor for Justice

Anyone know what the roots of this concept were ?

Now ask me the relevance to this discussion

A Clue

Diwan-al-Mazalim

 

[mrk123]

Its simple - its the people and not the system or a dogma or religious beliefs that make a nation or people successful. I think that societies have collective awakening and they take collective steps to evolve for the better. Once they achieve that state of development a state of ennui takes over. Humans are lazy in nature too. Look at what is happening to America. Look at the arguments that Obama makes about how the americans have taken their eye off the ball and are not producing the top notch scientists and researchers. However, they have an advantage that they invested heavily into building the institutions and that may well save them at the end of the day. I think its all too natural - these things come in cycles and there could be volumes written on why a civilization declined and sometime you can put your finger on something obvious that caused the decline but in some cases we still haven't figured out as to what went wrong.

There were some factors that contributed to the golden age of the muslims and once those factors disappeared the development went poof. There were no universities at the time to study the causes of the decline and it was too late to take corrective measure as you had said earlier - it was up to the caliph.
I think that its wrong to bring religion in this discussion.

Two important aspects of this discussion:

Muslim contribution to west has the following main schools of thought:

a. Western scholars who argue that no Muslim contribution was made except the fact that Muslims translated and secured ancient Greek texts (philosophy and science) and made it possible for western powers to gain from Greeks.
b. Western scholars who argue that Muslims not only transferred the Greek knowledge to western powers but also developed and transferred their own considerable body of work built on Greek foundations.
c. Muslim scholars which argue that the idea of renaissance and majority of policies in this regard were borrowed from Muslims by west.

arguments for A:
1. The foundation of Muslim sciences was made by Greeks. Ibne Sina, Ibne Khaldoon, Ibne Rush all were highly influenced by Greek philosophy.
2. It is telling that Muslims today use their names (Ibne Sina etc) to make the point that Muslims have contributed to science but no where in Islamic world there is any proper work done on the Philosophical ideas presented by the same people.
3. The argument that Scientific spirit was a result of Greek influence, Islam had no role to play in motivating or directing scientific research.
4. Western figures which very central is promoting renaissance were mainly against religious dogma. It does not make sense that they will leave church and move to Islam for inspiration (e.g. Voltaire).

Arguments for B:
1. Muslims built upon the Greek knowledge. Greek knowledge was a catalyst for further research but not the basis for scientific inquiry.
2. The sacred text of Muslims treat knowledge with high esteem.
3. Translation of Greek texts resulted in commentaries and comparative studies which hold a value independent of the original texts.

Arguments for C:
1. Muslim historians point out that Muslim Spain was exceptionally developed as compared to the rest of Europe. Knowledge was highly prized and private library was a sign of prestige.
2. Educational institutes in Spain were famous all over Europe and attracted the elite from throughout the continent.
3. The ideals of justice, social welfare, accountability and equal rights were borrowed from Muslim caliphs (specifically first four).

I have found good arguments on A and B but C is rather a stretch.

About C:

You are right there is some of Edward Said's 'Orientalism' but one cannot simply claim that this is the only reason.

1. Why couldn't Muslims create institutes for rational sciences like they did with transmitted sciences (Quran and Hadith). Madrassahs were based on Waqf that meant the society in general fulfilled their financial needs through many means like charity. Rational sciences were championed by some Caliphs only (that is why the rise and fall of sciences matches the rise and fall of certain caliphs) you don't find the same fervor in Islamic societies regarding rational sciences. Secondly why couldn't Muslims put these ideas into practice? There was no hurdle in their way! In Pakistan millions of madaris today are being run on public charities - how many research institutes are being run on Public charities?

2. The scholars championing the cause of renaissance were by and large against religious dogma. Religion became a cause of ignorance for them, many considered religion to be a limiting factor. Religion was a box and one had to think outside the box.

3. Islam was considered to be worse off then Christianity. During the Crusades the intentional distortion of Islamic texts for securing public opinion in favor of crusades also played a huge role in demonizing Islam and Muslims to European population.
(Muslims did the same in Crusades. Incense is used in many catholic church rites, a rumor was started in Muslims that incense was excretion of Pope, this caused much disgust in masses as hygiene was /is central to Islamic rites)

4. At the time of renaissance there was no example of a Muslim country thriving in rational sciences. Golden period of Muslims ended at 12th century (1250), while renaissance really started after 15th century (Spain had fallen to Christians in 1492 and it was not the historic Cordaba but a shadow of its past glory as successive rebellions and fights had taken their toll).

 

[Qureshi1975]

ye coments parhnay kai baad tu yahi kaha ja sakta hai kai

" Meetha meetha hup hup
krwa krwa tho tho "

 

[Sedqal]

@mrk123

Its simple - its the people and not the system or a dogma or religious beliefs that make a nation or people successful. I think that societies have collective awakening and they take collective steps to evolve for the better. Once they achieve that state of development a state of ennui takes over. Humans are lazy in nature too. Look at what is happening to America. Look at the arguments that Obama makes about how the americans have taken their eye off the ball and are not producing the top notch scientists and researchers. However, they have an advantage that they invested heavily into building the institutions and that may well save them at the end of the day. I think its all too natural - these things come in cycles and there could be volumes written on why a civilization declined and sometime you can put your finger on something obvious that caused the decline but in some cases we still haven't figured out as to what went wrong.

There were some factors that contributed to the golden age of the muslims and once those factors disappeared the development went poof. There were no universities at the time to study the causes of the decline and it was too late to take corrective measure as you had said earlier - it was up to the caliph.
I think that its wrong to bring religion in this discussion.​

I would beg (!?!) to differ, I think that Muslims got the notion that all they needed in this life and the next was available in Holy Texts and Sirat thus rational sciences were thought as being unnecessary (Religion is important since it provides the worldview). I would love to talk in detail about this specific area but I just found out a teenage crush of mine (from sinf e nazak obviously) on facebook and I can't wait to see whats happening in her life. For sake of all that is pink and fluffy I would bid you farewell till I can put some closure on this passionate provocation (bigsmile)

 

[Unicorn]

@mrk123


I would beg (!?!) to differ, I think that Muslims got the notion that all they needed in this life and the next was available in Holy Texts and Sirat thus rational sciences were thought as being unnecessary (Religion is important since it provides the worldview). I would love to talk in detail about this specific area but I just found out a teenage crush of mine (from sinf e nazak obviously) on facebook and I can't wait to see whats happening in her life. For sake of all that is pink and fluffy I would bid you farewell till I can put some closure on this passionate provocation (bigsmile)

You lucky devil(cry)

 

[mrk123]

Yes, who cares if swedes copied omar's law (if there is such a thing). Most important is that I don't keep you away from your tryst ....have fun!

@mrk123


I would beg (!?!) to differ, I think that Muslims got the notion that all they needed in this life and the next was available in Holy Texts and Sirat thus rational sciences were thought as being unnecessary (Religion is important since it provides the worldview). I would love to talk in detail about this specific area but I just found out a teenage crush of mine (from sinf e nazak obviously) on facebook and I can't wait to see whats happening in her life. For sake of all that is pink and fluffy I would bid you farewell till I can put some closure on this passionate provocation (bigsmile)

 

[zhohaq]

Lol. Facebook will turn us into Losers.

I hope she married a balding loaded bureaucrat and is now overweight peroxide disastor for your sake.:P

 

[Safarmai]

If Omar's law went to sweden, why it didn't come to subcontinent with muslim ruler. Now don't say that brittish destroy it. Mughals ruled sub-continent a lot more than brittish.

 

[UKPakistani]

If Omar's law went to sweden, why it didn't come to subcontinent with muslim ruler. Now don't say that brittish destroy it. Mughals ruled sub-continent a lot more than brittish.

If you want to know the link between Omar's Law and Scandanavia look up the roots of the word Ombudsman, where its history lies and you will see that there IS a link, however remote it might seem it is there

work it out

 

[Safarmai]

I live in scandinavia. i don't have to klik any link. during these 24 years, never heard of this law. I came as student so learning local language was important.
My point:
I meant, why this law was not in the sub continent during muslim rulers.

If you want to know the link between Omar's Law and Scandanavia look up the roots of the word Ombudsman, where its history lies and you will see that there IS a link, however remote it might seem it is there

work it out

 

[UKPakistani]

I live in scandinavia. i don't have to klik any link. during these 24 years, never heard of this law. I came as student so learning local language was important.
My point:
I meant, why this law was not in the sub continent during muslim rulers.

Because the rulers may have been Muslim, but it does not mean they enforced Islamic Law in any other way than suited them,
and to compare THEIR rule with that of the Original Caliph's and Companions is a little misleading.
So in answer to your question in the simpliest terms,
Moghul Rule was just that Moghul Rule far from perfect pure or eternal, which is Allah's Law (Perfect, Pure and Eternal):)

PS Do NOT look for direct reference to Omars Law,
Look at the history of the word Ombudsman and how it came into Norse, Nordic
what the purpose of the Ombudsman (NOT now but originally) was and where the origins of that purpose were

I assure you if you look deep enough it is there, the question is are you truly curious enough to want to know what I am talking about.

I have given you enough clues in this post and the earlier one, look hard look deep and look laterally, maybe then you will be able to explain it to others.

If you want me to make it easy for you..................................:)

 

[Safarmai]

Ok enough history

Tell me all the islamic countries where this law is at the moment. year 2012.

Because the rulers may have been Muslim, but it does not mean they enforced Islamic Law in any other way than suited them,
and to compare THEIR rule with that of the Original Caliph's and Companions is a little misleading.
So in answer to your question in the simpliest terms,
Moghul Rule was just that Moghul Rule far from perfect pure or eternal, which is Allah's Law (Perfect, Pure and Eternal):)

PS Do NOT look for direct reference to Omars Law,
Look at the history of the word Ombudsman and how it came into Norse, Nordic
what the purpose of the Ombudsman (NOT now but originally) was and where the origins of that purpose were

I assure you if you look deep enough it is there, the question is are you truly curious enough to want to know what I am talking about.

I have given you enough clues in this post and the earlier one, look hard look deep and look laterally, maybe then you will be able to explain it to others.

If you want me to make it easy for you..................................:)

 

[UKPakistani]

Ok enough history

Tell me all the islamic countries where this law is at the moment. year 2012.

Zero Nil Nada Zilch. Never apart from that era,

The Original Caliphs and Companions

some tried, and got nowhere near




A Clue

Diwan-al-Mazalim

Another

Hazrat Umar (RA) is reported to have said that, even if a dog died of hunger and thirst at the bank of the Euphrates in Baghdad, he would be held accountable by Almighty Allah.

Another

Ombudsman In its true Original Form = Diwan-al-Mazalim ?

Another

State's Duty to Citizen = ?

Now work it out..........







Once You and others work out all this do share it with others......................................... please

thanks



(i cannot be so stupid as to think tht only ik and i are right in this put aside YOUR prejudice that chita historian must automatically be right )