The Investigative System of Islam Investigative System of Islam

The Holy Prophet (PBUH) was sent to establish justice. He made use of law and good conduct to achieve this great target. Complete investigation and transport exploration is of universal value that holds fundamental significance in legal system. This research article presents insight, broadness and transparency of investigatory system established by the Prophet (PBUH). It also highlights rules and laws in the light of valid research references. All these features are evident in Prophet’s personality. In this regard, keeping in view the nature of topic, the guidance has been sought from the commands of The Quran, Hadith and different incidents of the life of Muhammad (SAWW). A discussion has been premeditated to explore Prophet’s tactics regarding law of investigation. This research article, having research outlook and logical link, touches upon the rules and principles which the Holy Prophet (PBUH) has given us for the recognition of the real culprit of good judgment, clues and witnesses. Investigative departments are radically important for the protection of Islam, maintenance of peace, internal stability and the protection of life, honor and property of people living in the society. The charter of these agencies is to abolish oppression, establish justice, impose the writ of law, and punish the guilty and to bring lawbreakers within the grip of law. The officer who performs the above duties is known as Naazir e Jaraaim1 in Islamic jurisprudential terminology. Further duties which fall within the remit of this officer are: Investigation of charges, production of the accused before a court of law, getting proven criminals sentenced by the court, executing the sentence handed down, releasing   the accused in case evidence is not sufficient and getting wrongful accusers punished properly.

Issues of Peace and Governance: A Case Study of Contemporary Pakistan

Research studies suggest that societies moving from traditional-authoritarian order towards rational-democratic order should promote rational-inclusive ideological discourse, promote politicians who are favorably disposed towards rational- democratic values and capacity building at local level—incubation/transformation. However, governing elite in developing societies, such as Pakistan, adopts either exclusive ideology or remain indifferent; temper with evolutionary political process and prefers centralization instead of building rational capacity at local level. As a result, society remains stuck in transition with hybrid regimes. Parallel to hybridism are fluctuations in state’s effectiveness, political instability and violence. Periodic fluctuations indicate the presence of underpinning structural factors in this regard. Thus, structural constraints faced by governing elite in state-society consolidation and relationship between hybridism and instability and violence need to be understood. The study is based on the position that hybrid regimes are locked in transition. As this study addresses ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions, therefore interpretive ‘empathetic enquiry’ has been employed. Within hybridism as deductive framework, induction across time and space has been employed in order to find out common pattern and specific variations. Governing elite is the product of structure, hence possesses both authoritarian inclination and conviction in the legitimacy of rational-democratic order. The absence of requisites of rational-democratic order provides justification for the authoritarianix mind-set. However, requirements of democratic legitimacy prompt them to continue democratization. But the task of adjustment between irreconcilable features compels them to adopt bounded rationality—decision-making which accounts only for immediate changing context. Thus, governing elite adapt politico-ideological posture according to the changing context—internal political situation and global dynamics. Besides, due to authoritarian-libertarian paradox, governing elite neither adopts consistent coercion nor complete accommodation. Thus, grievances of less- empowered groups due to nation-state discourse keeps on simmering, high expectations of potentially mobilized groups remain un-institutionalized, and greed of privileged groups unaddressed. In addition to these, temporary motivation and limited coercion without internalization of rational-democratic values make state and society fluctuating. Welfare-state discourse and holistic analysis of society by intelligentsia and political leadership can lead to the consolidation of stable as well as peaceful relations.