What Is The Difference Between Legal And Ethical

Legal means anything allowed by laws, regardless of the morality.

Ethics in general means anything allowed by morality, regardless of the legislation.

However, where laws observe the morality, an ethical conduct is also a legal conduct.

Ethics in a particular profession means the right way of conduct according to the peculiar morality of that profession.

Violation of laws is punished by the state, i.e. fine, imprisonment etc.
However, punishment for violation of ethics is often limited to negative reaction of the concerning people.

It is so until the rules of ethics get codified and become effective as a law.

Under-Performance in the Muslim World

My essay on modernity challenge faced by Muslim world, written for online course

Constitutional Struggles in the Muslim World
by Dr Ebrahim Afsah

My task was

Write a well-argued, clearly structured exposition that addresses the following key points plus any other you deem relevant:

• definition of under-performance (economic, social, military, etc.)
• role of institutions
• reasons for this negative trends, giving examples from different regions examined in weeks 2-9
• role of political Islam or Islamisation campaigns in that process
• countries/phenomena that the instructor highlighted as exceptions from this general trend and their recipe for relative success.

My essay:

Under-performance
Under-performance is failure by state organs to maintain the country's stability together with legitimacy. In countries with Muslim societies, the legitimacy of the government depends on the country's constitutional approach to Islam [1], though at a varying level. This creates a paradox at the first look, because Islam is a religion that regulates not only the worshiping methods but many further aspects of life, such as government and law and this fact leads to the idea that a country that provides for Islamic rule in its constitution would have to adopt a dogmatic system of law, based on non-disputable rules of Islam; so a constitutionally Islamic country cannot be governed with legal norms freely enacted according to the people's democratic choice.

This under-performance has several aspects. Though there is a common belief that Arabic countries are rich thanks to their resource of oil[2], there are two facts negating this belief: 1) not all, only some Arabic countries have rich sources [3] 2) Countries that have more natural sources are less productive, which is called resource curse[4]. The rent in these economies are spent for patronage, more than investment as it's the easiest and most attractive way of remaining in power in those countries.

Military aspect of under-performance is most severely felt in Arabic countries' struggle against Israel. In spite of the defeats, Arabic peoples have kept on believing that it is not a matter of size, budget etc., but only the governments' inability to perform the military actions properly. It is so common a problem that every group that held power in Egypt and Levant region were deposed by the popular majority following their defeat or insufficient attack against Israel.[5]

Social aspect of under-performance may be rated by the illiteracy and lack of democracy and other virtues in Muslim countries. Though these can be explained by the economic under-performance, there is also an argument that constitutional Islam, per se, prevents the social progress.

Role of Institutions
Just like in many under-developed countries, the Muslim countries tend to rely on their military as the most institutional organisation. This is natural in one way; armies are based on hierarchy and it is the easiest way to prevent individuals from seeking their own interests in spite of a collective interest; so armies become the, relatively, most institutions in Muslim countries.[6]

In most of these countries, armies act as protector of constitutional Islam, which makes their oppressive government easily legitimate. However, some countries' armies act as protector of the secularism, as in Turkey in 1999 [7], or at least a shield against fundamentalism, as in Egypt.

Therefore, having military as the only or the most remarkable institution of the nation is not caused by the interpretation of Islam. It is a natural result of the underdevelopment of the democratic institutions in the country.

The Islamic scholars also constitute important institutions in Muslim countries, though their way of organisation may vary much depending on the country, the relevant Islamic sect and the political environment. The common function of them is the fact that Muslim people seek not the governmental authority, but scholar review of Islamic scholars in governmental acts, examining whether the government works in compliance with law[8]. This is a more democratic way of legitimacy through constitutionalised Islam. Iran's new constitutional approach is promising about full democratisation of this examination process, where Islamic scholar's review about a legislative act is denied by the vast majority of votes, it is considered that the scholars are missing a point in interpreting Islam, since Islam cannot be against the people's necessities.[9]

Reasons of Failure
There are several reasons attributed to these failures. The first is the colonial period, which was suffered by almost all countries with Muslim population[10]. However this is not a strong argument. First, it has been so long time since the colonial period ended and many countries cannot still provide political legitimacy, because they are seen, by their people, nothing more than substitutes of the colonial powers, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa.[11] Secondly, there are cases indicating a negative correlation. For example Malaysia, which has a significant history colonialism, is better in many aspects, than almost all, (maybe with exception of Turkey) other countries with shorter or lighter experience of colonialism.

The colonial period is also seen as and indirect source of the instability, considering the ethnic disintegration in the countries they left behind[12]. However, there are also cases disproving this. Firstly, Somali, as a rare post-colonial country with integral ethnic structure is also the worst country in terms of governmental performance; it is a failed state. When governmental stability cannot be maintained together with political legitimacy, even the tribes of the same ethnic origin may cause a civil war that collapses the state. On the other hand, there are model non-Muslim countries with multi-ethnic structure, such as Switzerland, Belgium etc. Once people of a country has a legitimate common history[13], the ethnic differences may be tolerated by good governance.

The failure of these states is also attributed to general nature of Islam, arguing that Muslim countries had stopped progress long before the colonial period. According to this argument, the religion of Islam prevents the people from making any advance of civilisation by its unchangeable nature stuck in centuries old collection of rules.[14] However, this is false in many aspects. Firstly Muslims are not the only group of people that fell behind the colonial powers; East Asian countries and non-Muslim sub-Saharan countries shared nearly the same fate. Secondly, there are many ways of interpreting Islam to create laws or to form a constitution. Being stuck in certain rules is not an essential nature of Islam.[15]

Conclusion
For relative success, each country must base its legitimacy on its own way of Islam. And this legitimisation must be constitutional and be limited to ensuring the people about non violation of Islam. It must not be used as an instrument of authority or dogmatism. Constitutional mechanisms balancing the Islamic jurisdiction's power may maintain the stability with legitimacy.


[1] Ebrahim Afsah, Constitution Making in Islamic Countries - A Theoritical Framework p. 40
[2] Daniel Atzori, The Political Economy of Oil and the Crisis of the Arab State System, p. 4
[3] Let us note that the term resource here does not solely refer to natural sources, but also foreign aids that are earned by chance of political opportunities, such as in Afghanistan and Sudan cases.
[4] Ebrahim Afsah, i.b.i.d., p. 5
[5] Third and sixth weeks' lectures
[6] Third week's lecture
[7] Second week's lecture
[8] Fifth week's lecture
[9] Nineth weeks's lecture
[10] Ebrahim Afsah, "Creed, Cabal, or Conspiracy - The Origins of the current Neo-Conservative Revolution in US Strategic Thinking", p. 1
[11] Clark Lombardi and Nathan J. Brown, Islam in Egypt's New Constitution, "Foreign Policy", December 13, 2012, p. 5
[12] Iza Hussin, Islam, Ethnicity and the Problem of Mixed Legality: Two Malaysian Cases, "Yearbook of Islamic and Middle Eastern Law", 2010, p. 9
[13] As appositely suggested by Nietzsche
[14] Clark B. Lombardi, Designing Islamic Constitutions: Past Trends And Options For a Democratic Future, "International Journal of Constitutional Law" 2013, p. 2
[15] Ebrahim Afsah, Characteristics of a Sacred Law, "Journal of the History of International Law 10, 2008, p. 283

Murder vs Homicide

What Is The Difference Between Law And Act

Attorney-Lawyer Difference

Muslim World's Modernity Challenge

My essay on modernity challenge faced by Muslim world, written for online course

Constitutional Struggles in the Muslim World
by Dr Ebrahim Afsah

Questions:

1. What is special about modernity and which challenges does it generally pose to traditional societies?
2. Which challenges did Iran face from the 19th century onwards and what had these to do with modernity?
3. Which elements of the first three response patterns can you make out in modern Iranian history, and what accounts, in your view, for the ultimate success of the fourth in the shape of the victorious Islamic Revolution?

My essay:

The most remarkable modernity challenge faced by traditional societies, in particular Muslim societies is the inevitable series of loss in battlefield, in war(1), in diplomacy and lastly in aspect of culture and civilization(2). Though the modernity apparently stems from exclusively Western experiences such as Renaissance, Lutherism and the French Revolution, the total European modernity development is essentially supported by the economic gains, intellectual enhancement and political improvement provided by the geographic discoveries, which were simultaneously the cause for the fall of the Muslim societies. Iran was one, perhaps the worstly affected one of them.

While Ottomans, having the Turkish Straits, and Egyptians, having the Suez, still had a comperative commercial advantage against the rising powers of Europe, as they are not totally left outside the main trade routes, Iran, the center of the Silk Road and Spice Road, the two  much more popular, profitable and dominating trade routes in the middle ages, was almost totally adandoned as the Europeans had now direct trade connections with China and India. Though Iran used to have cultural influence in nearly 2/3 of the whole Asian continent and had endless but mostly succesful military engagements with its surrounding countries (3), all of which were once established by former Persian statesmen at a point in history (4), it was now more difficult, than any other Muslim country, for Iran to set aside its proud global challenges, admit the inevitable economic downsizing and replace its habits inherited from the heroic past, with the new methods of the Western, which had been considered as the evil for centuries.

All these factors combines, rendered Iran even more helpless against the invading powers of Russia ang Great Britain; when the governors and the people admitted the need for adopting the Western ways, the governmental institutions that could reach West and bring away the enlightment, as the case in Japan and party in Ottoman, were already ruined by internal conflicts and external hostilities. For Iran, the only way to obtain modernization was expecting it to come to Iran by itself; which was a rationale for welcoming, though not surrending to, the British and Russian territories of influence.

Now it was too late for Iran, for emulation/secularism and the experience of accelerated adoption of Western culture failed by 1979. Unlike other countries, Iran could not and did not try religious reforms as a means for modernization, because Shiate was the only strong political instrument that the state could employ for providing the order among its people. And its efforts to be a rentier economy with modest traditional objectives was ultimately disappointed by the Amglo-American coup, by the end of which its democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mosaddegh was taken to exile for rest of his life.

So, the ultime success of today's Iran to be an advanced republic depends on its ability to create a sound checks and balances systems, formed of 3 elements at least; the current system with one (maybe two) centers of power is not reliable in long term, because once the economy of the country allows the state to challenge its hostile countries, the balance-seeking policy of Iran will evade into history and the constitutional structure will be the only guarantee that keeps Iran people secured from too marginal decisions about the country's fate.

(1) Turkish-Russian War, Russian-Persian War, Second World War for Turks etc.(2) Low literacy, delayed industrialization and capitalization and inability to seize the technology and social & cultural developments.(3) Turkish-Persian wars between Timur and Bayazit, Hasan and Mehmet II, Shah Ismail and Selim I etc. on one side, Turkmen-Iran strugles on the other side and Iran's series of invasion into Iran, especiallay by Nadir Shah.(4) Ottomans are successor of Rum Seljuks, a Turkic state whose official language was Persian; Persian was also the formal language of Seljuks in Inner Asia and Mughals in India.

Murder vs Homicide

What Is The Difference Between Law And Act

Attorney-Lawyer Difference

Power İngilizce-Türkçe Hukuk Sözlüğü - Power English-Turkish Dictionary of Law

Turkish English Criminal Law Glossary