The Basis of Western legislation is corrupt

The one who examines the Western and Islamic legislations will find that the Western legislation has a false basis, corrupt solutions and cannot give solutions to new problems except by deviating from the basis, disregarding it and giving a solution which has no relationship to it, and in reality contradicts it. The one who examines the Islamic legislation will find that it has a correct basis, which is definite and not speculative. The solutions in this legislation are true and agree with the reality and the natural disposition of human beings. Moreover, it has the capacity to deduce any opinion for any problem without deviating from the basis on which it is established or disregarding the broad guidelines from which the opinion is deduced.

Western legislation it is established on the basis of an incorrect understanding of what is the right (Al-Haqq). All of its legislative theories are built on this understanding. Thus, it defined right as 'an interest which has a financial value recognised by law'. This understanding of right is erroneous and therefore all legislation based on it is void. As for its invalidity, the reality of a right is not an interest that has a material value, rather it is an absolute interest. It may have a financial value or it may not. Restricting the right to an interest that has a financial value leads to two things: Firstly, it does not include the interests which do not have a financial value, such as marriage and divorce, etc, contained in the marital rights, and like all of the family rights. Likewise, it does not include the interests with an ethical value such as protecting one's honour and dignity, which is the right of a human being, despite it not being a financial value and cannot really be considered a financial value at all. Secondly, evaluating things by a financial value requires the existence of a measuring unit in order to assess the right. Understanding right to be itself a value, it is not possible to find a unit to assess its value. Therefore, the definition of the right in this sense is void.

The Westerners have also divided the right into two main categories: The right related to the person's relationship, which it is called the personal right(right in personam), and the right which relates to the relationship of the person to money, which is called right in rem. The personal right, in the Capitalists' view, is the bond between two persons, the creditor and the debtor. This is defined as: ''The bond between two persons, the creditor and the debtor, according to which the creditor is empowered to demand the debtor to give something or undertake an action or abstain from an action.'' The personal right is the liability. On this basis, transactions that are called personal transactions are conducted. Some of these transactions are: monetary transfer, selling, bartering, company, gift, conciliation, leasing, loan, power of attorney, trust, pawning and custody. As for the right in rem, it is not a relationship in this view, but an authority given by the law to a specific person over a specific thing. This has been defined as: 'a specific authority given by the law to a specific person over a specific thing.' The right in rem relates to money and not to a person. On the basis of right in rem, transactions called rights in rem are conducted, like the right of ownership, means of acquiring ownership, mortgage on property, life insurance and rights of franchise.
 

This division of rights has no reason. There is no difference between what is called right in personam and right in rem. There is no difference in the transactions they built on these two divisions. There is no difference between lease and mortgaging of land. How can one put leasing under right in personam and mortgaging land under right in rem, even though both are relationships between two people and the subject is property? In addition, the definition is assumptive based on logical suppositions and not a description of a reality or a judgement on reality. When one defines the right in rem as: 'a specific authority given by the law to a specific person over a specific thing', this definition, according to its sense, means that the relationship arises between the person and the thing and not between one person and another. However, in reality, the relationship does not arise between the person and the thing, rather it is a relationship that arises between one person and another and the subject is the thing. The transactions that are included under the meaning of the right in rem, like the means of ownership, mortgage of movable property, mortgage of landed property and life insurance, all explicitly indicate this and do not indicate anything else. Thus it is a relationship between a person and another and its subject is the thing, and not a relationship between a person and the thing. As for defining the right in personam as: 'The bond between two persons, the creditor and the debtor, according to which the creditor is empowered to demand the debtor to give something or undertake an action or abstain from an action', this definition, according to its indication, means that the right is a bond between two persons, whether a thing existed or not. However, the reality is that the relationship does not exist between two persons in a way that generates a right unless there was a thing to which the relationship pertains. Thus, the thing is the subject of the relationship; in fact it is the basis of the relationship. Furthermore, this relationship which is called a bond, does not grant either of the two persons a right to make a demand from the other so as to say that it grants the creditor a right to make a demand from the debtor. Rather, it grants each of the two persons a right to make a demand from the other. The transactions that are included under the meaning of the right in personam, like selling, hiring and treaties, all indicate clearly that the thing is the basis of the relationship, and without it there would be no relationship or right. It also indicates that the relationship grants both of the two persons a right to make a demand from the other. However, the type of demand differs. The salesman demands a price and the purchaser demands the commodity etc. Moreover, dividing the right into a right in personam and a right in rem has no meaning in real terms and they are in fact the same. This is because the issue relates to the relationship of the person, whether it was with another person who possesses something, such as a sale; or it was with an object which has a person connected to it, such as a gift, or it was with an object alone, such as the charitable Waqf (endowment). Therefore, there is no difference between the first category, which is called the right in personam and the second category, which is called the right in rem. There is no difference between the mortgage or franchise mentioned under the right in rem and the money transfer, selling, company, hiring and representation mentioned under the right in personam. This is because the subject matter is either the relationship of someone with another person and the subject is the property, or with the property annexed to the person, or with the property only. These three forms are all one matter, which is the organisation of the relationship of human beings. Therefore, the division of the right in this manner is invalid. Furthermore, a prominent part of Western legislation is the civil law, i.e. legislation relating to all transactions whether it is those that organise the relationship of the individual with his family or the relationship of the individual with others in terms of wealth. The attack on the Islamic legislation was concerning the civil law. This civil law has been summarised by the West by dividing the right into the right in personam and right in rem. The right in personam was made to be the liability and on this basis the theory of liability (nadhariyyat ul-iltizaam) was developed. It is the jurisprudential source for all Western laws whether Latin or German codification.

All of them are established on the theory of liability. Liability has been given a number of definitions, all of which revolve around making the subject of the liability either the giving of property, or undertaking an action or abstaining from an action. Liability has been defined as: 'Agreement according to which one or more persons are pledged to another one or more persons to give something, undertake an action, or abstain from an action.' It has also been defined as 'a legal case according to which a person must transfer the right in personam, undertake an action or abstain from an action.' When these definitions are compared to the Capitalist definition of the right in personam (as a bond between two individuals, a creditor and a debtor, in which the creditor is entitled to demand from the debtor to give away something, undertake an action or abstain from an action), it is clear that the Theory of Liability is itself the right in personam. Thus this third step became one of the fundamentals of Western legislation, where the Capitalists first defined the right, then they divided it into the right in personam and the right in rem, and at a later stage, on the basis of the right in personam, they established the Theory of Liability and made it the basis of all civil law in the West. This theory is considered one of the most important in Western legislation. The one who studies Western jurisprudence and Western legislation extensively will understand the great importance of this theory. The importance of this theory to civil law can be compared to the importance of the backbone to the human skeleton. If there is contradiction and falsehood in this theory then the errors and falsehood in the body of Western legislation and all its canons will be manifested. What will also become clear is the strangeness and surprise of the Capitalist attack against the Islamic Shari’ah with these corrupt laws, and its attack against the pure legislation of Islam with this impure legislation and the resulting defeat of the Muslims.