LAW OF DURESS IN ISLAMIC LAW AND COMMON LAW: A ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Islamic Studies, 30:3 (1991) For a useful discussion see Hale. "Bargaining, Duress and Economic Liberty." 43 Cdum. L. Rev. 603 (1943); J. Dawson, "Economic Duress: An Essay in Perspective," 45 Mich. L. Rev. 253. (1947). See, D. Zimmerman, "Coercive Wage Offers," 10 Phil. and Pub. Aff. 121 (1981): G. Dworkin, "Compulsion and Moral Concepts," 78, Ethh 227 (1968); also see, discussion in Wettheimcr. Coacion, pp. 242-266. fingarctte, "Vition." 6546. See, "Lafavette Dramatic Reductions Inc. v. Ferank." 305 Mich 193, 9 N. W. 2d 57,65 (1943) relying on Webster's Ncw Intrmotional Dictionary 2d Ed. for a definition of dwess and coercion; G. Orchard. "The Defence of Compulsion." 9 New Zcoland UniwrsiricJ L. Rev. 105 (Dec. 1980) The MejeUe, Tysar Demetridas, Haqqi Effendi, trans. (Lahore: Punjab Educptid Pms. 1%7). The MejeUe was compiled between 1869 and 1876 as a codification of Hanafi Muslim Civil law. A similar definition is in the Iraqi Civil Codc article 112 (Duress is to compel a person, without right to do something which he does not consent to) bn Hajar al-'Asqallani, Fat+ af-Bdrifi Sharh af-BuWlriri (Beirut: Ma'arif, n.d.), vol. 12, p. 311, defines duress as "forcing someone to do something which he does mt wish to do". See also al-Darayni, af-Tardifi'l 'Uqrid wa'l-MubddcJirr (Jadah: Dar al-Sh-, 1982). p. 362 (Duress is to force someone to do an act that he does not wish to do if it had not been for the force applied against him) and B+r al-'UJBm, 'Uytib al-lrcidoh fi'l Shaniah af-lshniyyah (Beirut: Dar al-Zahri, 1984) p. 257 (Duress is to force someone to commit an act that he would not have otherwise committed if it had not been for the fear of harm). Although offering a definition of actual duress, these jurists are not describing legally recognisabk duress. Nall v. Commonwealth, 208 Ky 700,271, S.W. 1059 (1925); State v CIay 220 Iowa 1191,264 N.W. 77, 83, (1935); Burns v. State, 89, Ga. 527, 15, S.E. 748 (1892); Baine v. State, 67 Miss 557.7 So. 408 (1890): United States v. Contentc+Pachon, 723. F. 2d. 691,693-W (9th Cir. 1984). 17 C.J.S. Conrroc~, kc. 168 (1955); 25 Am. Jur. 2d. "Duress and Undue Influence" sec. 1 (1%4); Ruhenstein v. Rubenstein, 20 N.J, 359 120 A. 2d. 11, 14 (1956); State v. Gann, 244 N.W. 2d 746,752 (N.D. 1976); Talmadge v. Robinson, 158 Ohio St. 333,109 N.E. 2d 404, 500 (1952); B v. Boume (1952) 36 Crim. App. R. 125, 128 (1952); R.v. Hudson, [I9711 1 All. E.R. 244, 246-47, See. Mpdel P d Code (MPC) set: 2.09 (Of6cial Draft. 1962); Lafave and Scott. Handbook 374; State v. Toscano 74 N.J. 421,378 A. 2d 755.765 (1977); Lafavette Dramatic Rodudions Inc. v. Ferenk, 305 Mich. 193.9 N.W. 2d 57.65 (1943); see, Hochman v. Zigler's Incorpo- rated, 50 A. 2d. 97.99 (N. J. 1%). 17. C3.S. Confmcfs, sec. 174 United States v. Hasttell, 26 Fed. Cas. 207 (Pa. Cu Ct. 1823); Calamari and Perrillb, The Low of Confmcrs (1987). p. 337. Commonwealth v. Refitt, 149 Ky. 300,148, S.W. 48 (1912); Moore v. State, 23 Ala. App. 432, 127 So. 796 (1930); People v. Ricker, 45 111,2d. 562,262. N.E. 2d. 456 (1970); State v. Toscano, 74 N.J. 421, 378 A. 2d. 755, 761, (1977); 25 Am. Jw. 2d. "Duress." sec. 11; Pdha d Boyce. Crimind hw (l!J82), p. 1061; BlacLstoac, Cornmcnforics, bk. 1, chap. 1. pp. 1W31; M e. Second Institute 483 (1648). Bishop, The Criminaf law (1892). vol. 1, p. 207;17C.J.S.,Conbacrr, sec. 179; 25Am. Jur. 2d, "Duress" sec. 22; Edwards, Compulsion, p. 334, but see Bush v. People, 10 colo. 566, 16 Pac. 290 (1888) (recognising a serious injury directed against a brother). Bums v. State, 89 Ga. 527, 15 S.E. 748 (1892); Baine v. State. 67 Miss. 557, 7 So. 408 (1890); D'Aquino v. United States, 192 F. 2d. 338,358 (9th Cir. 1951); Burton v. State, 51 Tex. Crim. 1%. 101 S.W. 226 (1907); G. Williams. Textbook On Criminul h w, 580(1978); 17 C.J.S. Contmcu, sec. 168. Damon, Economic Duress, p. 255; L. Newman and L. Weitzer, ''Dwess. Free Will and the Criminal Law." 30 S. Cd. L. Rev. 313,329-331 (1957); 25 Am. Jw. 2d. "Dunu." sec. 11; State v. Toscano, 74 N.J. 421, 378 A. 2d. 755, 762, (1977). L. Newman and L. Weitzer. "Duress, Free Will," 315. 'Ibe approach of the common law was far from unusual. In fact, most anaent legal systems approached the subject with the
Islamic Studies, 30:3 (1991) 337 same conservatism. For example, at Roman law, "'Mchrc (duress) consisted in threats of pbykal hum, death, emlavement, accusation on a capital charge or of an attack upon the chastity of the prty so threatened or of a member of his family; threats of merely economic damage would not suflia." Thomas. Tatbook of Romon law (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1976). p. 227. Jwrimimf Digest, however, states that fear of infamy is not amred by the mthh edict. See Juuinian's Digest, Book 4. Title 2, section 7 Watson bum. 7%~ Digw of Jy1rinion (Philadelphia: Univ. of Pem Ress, 1985) vol. 1 at p. 114. Rubenstein v. Rubenstein, 20 N.J. 359,120 A. 2d. 11,15 (1996); Ensign v. Home for Jewish Aged, 274 S. W. 2d. 5U2 (Mo. App. 1955); Orchard, Defence of compulsion, 11 1; G. Fridman, "Duress in the Canadian and English Law of Restitution: A Comparison," 11 no. 1 Ddho11sie L.J. 47. XL52 (Sept. 1987); 17 C.J.S. Controctr, sec 175, p. 959-%0. See, 17 C.J.S. Contracts, sec. 172, 954-956, sec. 175 at %2 and sec. 177, 966-%7; 25 Am. Jur. 2d. "Duress," sec. 18. Hochman v. Zigler's Incorporated, 50 A. 2d. 97, 100 (N.J. Ch. 1946); Miller v. Elsele. 168 A. 426,430 (N.J. 1933); Uniform Corrrmcnicrl Code, sec. 2-3U2 (1%2) (Pqmses). "The act or heat upon which a claim of coercion is predicated must only be wrongful in a moral sense, not necessarily a legal one." Justice Holmes earlier on held that whether the threat is unlawful or not is not determinative. Sallsbee v. Webber. 171 Maos, 378, 50 N.E. 555 (1898). However, some modem courts continued to state that it is never duress to threaten to do what one has a legal right to do, for example, Fidelity & Casuality Co. of N.Y. v. United States, 490 F. 2d. %0, !766 (Ct. CI. 1974). But see, Rubenstein v. Rubenstein, 20 N.J. 359, 120 A. 2d. 11, 15 (1956). See, Fingarette, Vidimizcrtin, p. 109, Fridman, Canadian and English law, pp. 51-52 (expressing the view that British law is unclear on this point); Hale, Bargaining, 613-615; N. Rafferty, 'The Element of Wrongful Resure in A Finding of Duress," 18, no. 3 Alkm L. Rev. 431 (I=); Sutton, "Duress by Threatened Breach of Contract," 20 McGill L.J. 544 (1974); Dalzell, "Duress by Economic Pressure," 20 N.C.L. Rev. 341 (1942); J. Dawson, "Duress Through Civil Litigation". 45 Mich. L. Rev. 571 (1947). Wer(beimervthst m dl - m a twopronedysisisat work. One, what the lntbor alb a "cboia pmq" ia which tbe coart iaqr6ra rhetber the coenrr's "jmqod rruta a cboia aihution for [the merad] such thst [the d] has no alternative but to do I". lko, a "pupad prone" m which the mutt inquirts "whether it i wrong for [the anrar] to make such a prcqxmal to [the menad]". Wertheimer argues thst courts adopt a ~.admonlrppo;rhm~bdh~.Butwhikthepmposslprmg:'does matdtheaat"meivil~,thecboiapronemmmdm~tiveincriminalcsrres. (Wertheimer. Canion, pp. 17273; 274-75). Only a selective reading d the came law csn support thir adysk. But even if this is, m fact. the underlying philosophical reasoning behind the cauq this h not the law. The case law does not reflect such a coherent and It is difficult to make a uniform presentation of Islamic law since, not unlike the Common law, there is no single authoritative source of law. Islamic law is represented in the writings of several medieval Muslim jurists. mere are five major Sunni schools of law, ShWi, Hanafi, MPi, Wbali and w, as well as, at least, two Shi'ite schools. When I use the term :slatkc law, I mean the opinion of the majority of the jurists on a particular point. If there is no majority view. I point that out in the endnotes. Additionally, in prrwnting Islamic law I have sometimes used the consensus of modem Muslim jurists studying the subject. This division is often ascribed only to the Hanaii school of thought in Islamic law. See M. Hamid, "Duress and its Effect on Contracts in Islamic law," Sudon L.J. and Reports 334. 334-335 (1971); A. El-Hasan, "The Doctrine of Duress (ikd) in Sharia, Sudan and English Law," I. Arab. L. Q. 231, 231 (1986). However, this is largely inaccurate. Other Islamic schools did have a general conaption of two types of duressone so compelling as to negate liability in grave offenses and the other not so compelling. The Shafi'i jurists used the term ruinous duress (ikr& dlik) while the MBliki jurists used the term total duress (ikrcih mu!laq) for what the I+I%S called ikr& m4i. See al-Jamal. Hlirhiyat al-JaMI (Cairo: al-Wktabah al-Tij*yyah al-Kubra, n.d.), vol. 5, p. 9; and al-Dusuqi. Hlirhiyaf d-Dusuqi
Page 1 and 2: Islamic Studies (Islamabad) 30:3 (1
Page 3 and 4: Islamic Studies, 30:3 (1991) 307 ov
Page 5 and 6: Islamic Studies. 30:3 (1991) 309 At
Page 7 and 8: Islamic Studies, 30:3 (1991) 31 1 t
Page 9 and 10: Islamic Studies, 30:3 (1991) 313 Th
Page 11 and 12: Islamic Studies, 30:3 (1991) 315 ac
Page 13 and 14: Islamic Studies, 30:3 (1991) 317 If
Page 15 and 16: Islamic Studies, 30:3 (1991) 319 th
Page 17 and 18: Islamic Studies, 30:3 (1991) 321 CR
Page 19 and 20: lskmic Studies, 30:3 (1991) 323 of
Page 21 and 22: Islamic Studies, 30:3 (1991) 325 th
Page 23 and 24: lslamic Studies, 30:3 (1991) 327 ki
Page 25 and 26: Islamic Studies, 30:3 (1991) 329 A
Page 27 and 28: lslamic Studies, 30:3 (1991) 33 1 I
Page 29 and 30: Ishmic Studies, 30:3 (1991) 333 und
Page 31: law of duress is in need of develop
Page 35 and 36: Islamic Studies, 30:3 (1991) 339 Se
Page 37 and 38: Islamic Studies, 30:3 (1991) 341 mL
Page 39 and 40: Islamic Studies, 30:3 (1991) 343 Op
Page 41 and 42: klamic Studies, 30:3 (1991) 345 One
Page 43 and 44: Islamic Studies, 30:3 (1991) 347 11
Page 45 and 46: Islamic Studies, 30:3 (1991) 349 Fo

LAW OF DURESS IN ISLAMIC LAW AND COMMON LAW: A ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?