Saira Malik

This paper explores the theoretical Islamic legal framework and methodology used by Islamic religo-legal authorities in issuing rulings regarding contemporary medico-ethical issues of concern to Muslim minorities, health professionals and policy makers in Britain. The author demonstrates that the guiding principle used by Islamic religo-legal authorities related to medico-ethical issues in Britain is the Quranic precept of, “Enjoin the good, prevent the harmful”. In particular, the Islamic legal instrument of maslaha is used to arrive at rulings in a process in which the role of the muftī is crucial. The author shows that the muftī is able to legitimately function in a contemporary liberal society such as Britain because of the private nature of his authority that has historically been vested in this position. The paper also explores how the operation of the sharī’a in Britain may potentially intersect with the British legal system and some of the consequences that arise from this potentiality. The author concludes by reflecting upon what the issues raised in this paper indicate for the broader themes related to the integration of Muslims into contemporary liberal societies.

Observation and experiment as categories for analysing scientific practice have a long pedigree in writings on science. There has, however, been little attempt to delineate observation and experiment with respect to analysing scientific practice; in particular, scientific experimentation, in a systematic manner. Someone who has presented a systematic account of observation and experiment as categories for analysing scientific experimentation is Ian Hacking. In this paper, I present a detailed analysis of Hacking’s observation versus experiment account. Using a range of cases from various fields of scientific enquiry, I argue that the observation versus experiment account is not an adequate framework for delineating scientific experimentation in a systematic manner.