Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 June 2009
The history of Muhammadan Law in India falls naturally into three periods: (A) The period of Muslim domination (1206 A.D.–1857 A.D.); (B) The British period (1661–1951); (C) The Republican period (commencing with the promulgation of the Constitution of India on 26 January 1950). The dates are in such cases somewhat misleading and not mathematically “neat”. They may overlap, as in the British period, or, be ambient, as during the Muslim Sultanate. On the other hand they indicate with some degree of clarity the historical evolution and the time sequence of each system of jurisprudence. It will thus be seen that the Muhammadan law in India is one more instance of law being a function of society, thus being in a continuous state of flux. It is hardly necessary for me to add that the above classification must be read culliert to itc natural limitations.
1 Ahmad, M. B., Administration of Justice in Medieval India (Aligarh, 1941) 25.Google Scholar
2 Morley, W. H., Administration of Justice in British India (London, 1858), 193; Fyzee, Outlines of Muhammadan Law, 2nd ed., 42.Google Scholar
3 Hamilton, , Hedaya, Preliminary Discourse, xiv.Google Scholar
4 Fyzee, op. cit., 42; Ahmad, 32.
5 Fyzee, op. cit., 37; Ahmad, 90–91 and other places.
6 Ahmad, 66.
7 Ibid., 67.
8 Ibid., 266 ff.
9 Ibid., 68.
10 Da‘ä’im, II, Para. 1394.
11 Fyzee, , Modern Approach to Islam (Asia Pub. House, 1963).Google Scholar
12 Da‘ā’im, II, Para. 1887.
13 Hamilton, Hedaya, 338a.
14 Cited and explained, Fyzee, Outlines, 300.
15 Hamilton, Hedaya, 334a.
16 Ahmad, 92.
17 Ibid., 93.
18 Ibid., 94.
19 Fyzee, op. cit., 42 sq.
20 Ahmad, 155.
21 Ibid., 155–56.
22 Ibid., 272–end.
23 Ibid., 202ff.
24 Setalvad, , The Common Law of India (London, 1960), 4.Google Scholar
25 Rankin, George Claus, Background to Indian Law (Cambridge, 1946), 1.Google Scholar
26 Morley, W. H., Digest, i, clxix.Google Scholar
27 Wilson, (5th ed., Calcutta, 1921), Anglo-Muhammadan Law, 31; Sir George Rankin, Background to Indian Law, 9; Robaba (incorrectly, Robasa) v. Khodadad (1946) 48 Bombay Law Reporter 864, 878; Fyzee, op. cit., 43.
28 Setalvad, , The Common Law in India, London, 1960, 12, citing Letters Patent of 09 24, 1726.Google Scholar
29 Rankin, op. cit., 119.
30 Fyzee, op. cit., 43.
31 Setalvad, op. cit., 10.