Many countries follow the jury system in one form or another including the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, Argentina, and New Zealand to issue judgments in major crimes. The judge’s role in this system is limited to managing trial sessions and pronouncing the sentence after the jury gives its verdict.
This system is characterized by its complexities and costs, compared to the systems used in our countries in the way an ordinary citizen is involved in the process of applying the criminal justice. The selection and verification of the legibility of the jury are carried out in a complex manner, and it may take up to a few months especially in complex crimes. Lawyers also have the right to object to any of them. Jurors are kept in a closed place throughout the trial period and until a verdict is issued, and their connection with their surroundings is severed so as not to be influenced by what is said and published in the media.
On May 25, 2020, US policeman Derek Chauvin killed American citizen George Floyd by pressing his knee on the neck of the victim until he could not breathe and as a result he died. It took more than ten months to choose a jury, conduct a trial, and find Chauvin guilty of the murder and leave it to the judge to pronounce the verdict.
With the issuance of the verdict, Mr Dhafer Al-Ajami published a tweet on his account and it quickly spread in the media. In the tweet Al-Ajami stated that the jury system had its origins in the Maliki school of thought in the eighth century without indicating whether the century was Hijri or not. He also added, with the academic’s confidence, that the system consisted of 12 jurors chosen from the good people who swore they would rule with justice, and that the British King Henry chose to apply it in the 12th century, yet he did not show us which Henry he was talking about since there are 8 British kings with this name.
The funny thing is that the source of Mr Dhafer Al-Ajami is the American TV channel TYT, and not the Islamic heritage books, which, as far as I know, did not deal with this type of judiciary.
The scarcity of our history of achievements is not a defect because this is the case for most of the countries of the world. The present is what is important and not the past. However, some feel an inferiority complex and search for any straw to save them from drowning in the sea of backwardness.
We have also come to repeat that every achievement, invention, or modern scientific is attributed to the Muslim scholars. Then we were surprised that the “Islah (Social Reform) Society, the local branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, which Al-Qabas praised for its glorious history, presented a list to the Kuwait Municipality with the names of 47 ‘scholars’ to name streets after them.
When reading the list of the 47 names, with full respect to their families, and among them our contemporary, I did not find a single name of what we call Islamic scholars. This means the Social Reform Society does not recognize the real Islamic scholars to the point that they would not hesitate to change the names of Al-Razi and Ibn Sina Hospitals and others if they could do. Where is the truth, I wonder?
Note: I thank the patience of the Al-Qabas Board for accepting the publication of my yesterday’s article, in which I criticized its recent editorial, and this confirms its credibility, and its willingness to publish various viewpoints with my belief that this willingness should not extend to publishing the views or opinions of extremist parties.
e-mail : email@example.com
By Ahmad alsarraf