In certain contemporary Muslim majority states apostasy and blasphemy are not merely religious sins; they are acts which potentially have legal, or extra-legal, consequences. Although apostasy has not been criminalised in many such states, extrajudicial killings of apostates are carried out by some extremist groups and individuals. Such groups always justify these murders of fellow Muslims and non-Muslims on the grounds of apostasy and blasphemy. The concept and use of takfir (excommunication) is also a serious issue in Muslim majority states. Groups such as Daesh (also known as Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) rely on takfir to attack fellow Muslims, despite there being no legal basis in Shari’a for the use of takfir or for criminalising apostasy. Although the concept was developed by people, not God, takfir are now being used to bypass rational human judgement. Their use plays a major role in many of the religious issues confronting Muslim majority states, such as the criminalisation of apostasy and blasphemy. This thesis analyses the central issues of apostasy, blasphemy and takfir collectively, as their history and their contemporary use and misuse by extremist groups are inextricably entwined. The key finding is that the right to punish apostasy and blasphemy and to issue declarations of excommunication (takfir), all originally reserved in Islam for God only, have been appropriated by man. Through developments in the understandings of these concepts, all three have come to be seen by some scholars and ordinary believers as a ‘right of man’. This evolution in interpretation and in application is inconsistent with Shari’a law.

Master's thesis. / Format: PDF. Bibl.

The political ideas of Auberon Herbert are usually associated with the late Victorian Individualist thinkers primarily influenced by the philosopher Herbert Spencer. Although Herbert derived his political philosophy of Voluntaryism from Spencer’s thinking it also owed much to J. S. Mill. Voluntaryism was based on a Lockean-Spencerian conception of individual natural rights that asserted self-ownership and the moral obligation for individuals to respect the rights of other people. Rights protection against force and fraud constituted the primary purpose of government. Herbert, aptly describing Voluntaryism as the system of liberty, peace and friendliness, applied these principles to a range of situations from street maintenance, to collective property purchase, and, finally, to the voluntary support of the state. Voluntary taxation was the most controversial component of Herbert’s theory, emphasising its distinctiveness. Although Herbert resisted socialist and new liberal attempts to expand the role of the state, his reasons for doing so shared little in common with conservative critics of this direction. Herbert, a republican and democrat, repeatedly attacked privilege, seeking widespread change including land reform and universal suffrage. His position represented that of a radical reformer seeking to promote Voluntaryism as the basis for friendly co-operation among free individuals at home and abroad. An internationalist, Herbert opposed aggressive imperialism, but also supported national self-determination, including Irish Home Rule. The notion of the voluntary state has led to claims of Herbert’s anarchism, but research indicates a greater complexity to his political ideas. Overall, Herbert was an extreme libertarian who never completely lost sight of the state, although he greatly limited its role. While Herbert’s political theory was idealistic, it avoided the social prescription usually associated with utopianism. Herbert’s commitment to an ethos of radical progressivism was one he shared with other contemporary socialist and anarchist thinkers who, like Herbert, attempted to live the politics they espoused. For his political philosophy and activism, Herbert warrants acknowledgement as one of the most prominent English libertarians of the nineteenth century.

The political ideas of Auberon Herbert are usually associated with the late Victorian Individualist thinkers primarily influenced by the philosopher Herbert Spencer. Although Herbert derived his political philosophy of Voluntaryism from Spencer’s thinking it also owed much to J. S. Mill. Voluntaryism was based on a Lockean-Spencerian conception of individual natural rights that asserted self-ownership and the moral obligation for individuals to respect the rights of other people. Rights protection against force and fraud constituted the primary purpose of government. Herbert, aptly describing Voluntaryism as the system of liberty, peace and friendliness, applied these principles to a range of situations from street maintenance, to collective property purchase, and, finally, to the voluntary support of the state. Voluntary taxation was the most controversial component of Herbert’s theory, emphasising its distinctiveness. Although Herbert resisted socialist and new liberal attempts to expand the role of the state, his reasons for doing so shared little in common with conservative critics of this direction. Herbert, a republican and democrat, repeatedly attacked privilege, seeking widespread change including land reform and universal suffrage. His position represented that of a radical reformer seeking to promote Voluntaryism as the basis for friendly co-operation among free individuals at home and abroad. An internationalist, Herbert opposed aggressive imperialism, but also supported national self-determination, including Irish Home Rule. The notion of the voluntary state has led to claims of Herbert’s anarchism, but research indicates a greater complexity to his political ideas. Overall, Herbert was an extreme libertarian who never completely lost sight of the state, although he greatly limited its role. While Herbert’s political theory was idealistic, it avoided the social prescription usually associated with utopianism. Herbert’s commitment to an ethos of radical progressivism was one he shared with other contemporary socialist and anarchist thinkers who, like Herbert, attempted to live the politics they espoused. For his political philosophy and activism, Herbert warrants acknowledgement as one of the most prominent English libertarians of the nineteenth century.

The political ideas of Auberon Herbert are usually associated with the late Victorian Individualist thinkers primarily influenced by the philosopher Herbert Spencer. Although Herbert derived his political philosophy of Voluntaryism from Spencer’s thinking it also owed much to J. S. Mill. Voluntaryism was based on a Lockean-Spencerian conception of individual natural rights that asserted self-ownership and the moral obligation for individuals to respect the rights of other people. Rights protection against force and fraud constituted the primary purpose of government. Herbert, aptly describing Voluntaryism as the system of liberty, peace and friendliness, applied these principles to a range of situations from street maintenance, to collective property purchase, and, finally, to the voluntary support of the state. Voluntary taxation was the most controversial component of Herbert’s theory, emphasising its distinctiveness. Although Herbert resisted socialist and new liberal attempts to expand the role of the state, his reasons for doing so shared little in common with conservative critics of this direction. Herbert, a republican and democrat, repeatedly attacked privilege, seeking widespread change including land reform and universal suffrage. His position represented that of a radical reformer seeking to promote Voluntaryism as the basis for friendly co-operation among free individuals at home and abroad. An internationalist, Herbert opposed aggressive imperialism, but also supported national self-determination, including Irish Home Rule. The notion of the voluntary state has led to claims of Herbert’s anarchism, but research indicates a greater complexity to his political ideas. Overall, Herbert was an extreme libertarian who never completely lost sight of the state, although he greatly limited its role. While Herbert’s political theory was idealistic, it avoided the social prescription usually associated with utopianism. Herbert’s commitment to an ethos of radical progressivism was one he shared with other contemporary socialist and anarchist thinkers who, like Herbert, attempted to live the politics they espoused. For his political philosophy and activism, Herbert warrants acknowledgement as one of the most prominent English libertarians of the nineteenth century.

The political ideas of Auberon Herbert are usually associated with the late Victorian Individualist thinkers primarily influenced by the philosopher Herbert Spencer. Although Herbert derived his political philosophy of Voluntaryism from Spencer’s thinking it also owed much to J. S. Mill. Voluntaryism was based on a Lockean-Spencerian conception of individual natural rights that asserted self-ownership and the moral obligation for individuals to respect the rights of other people. Rights protection against force and fraud constituted the primary purpose of government. Herbert, aptly describing Voluntaryism as the system of liberty, peace and friendliness, applied these principles to a range of situations from street maintenance, to collective property purchase, and, finally, to the voluntary support of the state. Voluntary taxation was the most controversial component of Herbert’s theory, emphasising its distinctiveness. Although Herbert resisted socialist and new liberal attempts to expand the role of the state, his reasons for doing so shared little in common with conservative critics of this direction. Herbert, a republican and democrat, repeatedly attacked privilege, seeking widespread change including land reform and universal suffrage. His position represented that of a radical reformer seeking to promote Voluntaryism as the basis for friendly co-operation among free individuals at home and abroad. An internationalist, Herbert opposed aggressive imperialism, but also supported national self-determination, including Irish Home Rule. The notion of the voluntary state has led to claims of Herbert’s anarchism, but research indicates a greater complexity to his political ideas. Overall, Herbert was an extreme libertarian who never completely lost sight of the state, although he greatly limited its role. While Herbert’s political theory was idealistic, it avoided the social prescription usually associated with utopianism. Herbert’s commitment to an ethos of radical progressivism was one he shared with other contemporary socialist and anarchist thinkers who, like Herbert, attempted to live the politics they espoused. For his political philosophy and activism, Herbert warrants acknowledgement as one of the most prominent English libertarians of the nineteenth century.

The political ideas of Auberon Herbert are usually associated with the late Victorian Individualist thinkers primarily influenced by the philosopher Herbert Spencer. Although Herbert derived his political philosophy of Voluntaryism from Spencer’s thinking it also owed much to J. S. Mill. Voluntaryism was based on a Lockean-Spencerian conception of individual natural rights that asserted self-ownership and the moral obligation for individuals to respect the rights of other people. Rights protection against force and fraud constituted the primary purpose of government. Herbert, aptly describing Voluntaryism as the system of liberty, peace and friendliness, applied these principles to a range of situations from street maintenance, to collective property purchase, and, finally, to the voluntary support of the state. Voluntary taxation was the most controversial component of Herbert’s theory, emphasising its distinctiveness. Although Herbert resisted socialist and new liberal attempts to expand the role of the state, his reasons for doing so shared little in common with conservative critics of this direction. Herbert, a republican and democrat, repeatedly attacked privilege, seeking widespread change including land reform and universal suffrage. His position represented that of a radical reformer seeking to promote Voluntaryism as the basis for friendly co-operation among free individuals at home and abroad. An internationalist, Herbert opposed aggressive imperialism, but also supported national self-determination, including Irish Home Rule. The notion of the voluntary state has led to claims of Herbert’s anarchism, but research indicates a greater complexity to his political ideas. Overall, Herbert was an extreme libertarian who never completely lost sight of the state, although he greatly limited its role. While Herbert’s political theory was idealistic, it avoided the social prescription usually associated with utopianism. Herbert’s commitment to an ethos of radical progressivism was one he shared with other contemporary socialist and anarchist thinkers who, like Herbert, attempted to live the politics they espoused. For his political philosophy and activism, Herbert warrants acknowledgement as one of the most prominent English libertarians of the nineteenth century.

Häktning är ett av de mest ingripande tvångsmedel som staten kan vidta gentemot enenskild person. I kombination med restriktionsanvändning riskerar det att kränka ett flertalav den enskildes grundlagsskyddade rättigheter. Att reglera en häktningslagstiftninginnebär att göra en noggrann avvägning mellan de brottsutredande myndigheternas möjlighetertill en effektiv utredning samt lagföring och den enskildes skydd för grundläggande fri- och rättigheter. Med en så ingripande åtgärd mot en ännu ej dömd person är det av största vikt att ställa höga krav på reglering och tillämpning av tvångsmedlet och dess överensstämmande med grundläggande principer och rättigheter. Senaste årens ökningav häktningstider är således oroande och kräver förändring. Sverige har under flera decennier fått återkommande och omfattande kritik för sin regleringkring häktning. Kritiken har riktat sig mot att det inte finns någon övre tidsgränsför hur länge en person kan sitta häktad, en omfattande restriktionsanvändning samt avsaknaden av effektiva alternativa tvångsmedel till häktning. Till följd av kritiken presenterade regeringen år 2020 ett flertal förslag som syftade till en effektivare häktningsreglering. I min framställning kommer jag ta sikte på möjligheterna att minska de långa häktningstiderna.Flertalet av förslagen har indirekt betydelse för möjligheterna att minska delånga häktningstiderna och det mest omdebatterade förslaget är det om införandet av enövre tidsgräns för hur länge man får sitta häktad.I min slutsats argumenterar jag för att nuvarande utformning och tillämpning av häktningsregleringenkan antas strida mot överordnad rätt och i viss mån vara anledningen tillde långa häktningstiderna. Jag ställer mig positiv till de förslag regeringen presenterar isyfte att förändra nuvarande häktningslagstiftning. Jag tror det finns en stor sannolikhet för att förslagen kommer kunna leda till minskade häktningstider. Samtidigt ställer jag mig tveksam till i vilken utsträckning den maxtidsgräns som presenteras kommer lösasamma problem. Visserligen anser jag att den gräns som presenteras är viktig ur legalitetssynpunkt, men att den inte i tillräcklig utsträckning avhjälper den proportionalitetsproblematik som förekommer. Jag är inte heller övertygad om att häktningstiderna faktiskt kommer minska till följd av införandet av denna gräns. Konsekvenserna av förslagen innebär på det stora hela en minskad användning av häktning, en mindre godtycklig häktningsprocess och minskade häktningstider. Förhoppningen är att förslagen i viss mån kommer underlätta för åklagare och domstol vid beslut om häktning och särskilt bedömningen av huruvida häktningen är proportionerlig eller ej. Jag menar emellertid att mer kan göras för att komma tillrätta med nuvarande häktningsregleringoch långa häktningstider varför ytterligare förslag på förändring kommer presenterasi denna framställning. / Pre-trial detention is one of the most intervening means of coercion that the state authorities can use against an individual. In combination with the use of restrictions there is risk that it will infringe a numerous of the constitutional rights of the individual. To regulatet he law of detention means to balance the interests of the possibilities of the stateauthorities to an efficient investigation and prosecution and the individuals protection oftheir constitutional rights. With such an intervening action against a not yet condemnedperson it is of paramount importance to ensure high demands on the regulation and applicationof the means of coercion and its compatibility with constitutional principles andrights. The increasing times of pre trial detention the last couple of years are therefore agitating and requires a change. Sweden has during several decades received recurrent and extensive criticism regardingits regultation on detention. The critic has been adressed against that there is no upperlimit for how long a person can undergo pre-trial detention, a comprehensive use of restrictions and the lack of efficient alternative means of coercion to pre trial detention.Following the criticism the government 2020 presented a numerous proposals on how to change the legislation in purpose of a more efficient regulation of detention. In my thesis I focus on the possibilities to decrease the long times of detention. Most of the proposalsare of relevance for the possibilities to decrease the long times of detention and the most debated proposal is the one regarding the imposition of an upper limit of how long aperson can remain in continual detention.In my conclusion I argue for that the present regulation and application of detention canbe assumed to infringe superior constitutional law and to a certain extent be the cause of the long times of detention. I remain positive towards the proposals the government present in order to change the current regulation of detention. I think it´s highly likely thatthe proposals can lead to shorter times of detention. At the same time I remain doubtfultowards in what extent the upper time limit that is presented can solve the same problem. Indeed I believe that the presented limit is important in an aspect of legality, but that it´s not enough to remedy the complex problem of proportionality that exists. I´m neitherconvinced that the long times of detention actually are going to decrease as a consequence of the imposition of this limit.The consequences of the proposals can overall lead to reduced use of detention, a less arbitrary detention process and shorter times of detention. Hopefully the proposals canfacilitate for public prosecutors and courts regarding decisions of detention and especiallythe assessment of whether the detention is proportional or not. However, I mean that morecan be done to settle current regulation and long times of detention why further proposals will be presented in this paper.

This sociological study explores the past and current higher education (HE) experience of educationalists at Gaza’s universities and how this experience may be evolving in the shifting socio-political context in the Arab World. The thesis is motivated by three questions: 1. What are the perspectives of academic staff in the Faculties of Education at Gaza’s universities on their own past HE experiences? 2. What are the perspectives of students and their lecturers (academic staff) in the Faculties of Education at Gaza’s universities on students’ current HE experiences? 3. How do educationalists in the Faculties of Education at Gaza’s universities perceive the shifting socio-political context in the Arab World, and what current or future impact do they think it will have on the education context at Gaza’s universities? To examine these questions, I conducted an inductive qualitative study. Using 36 in-depth, semi- structured interviews which lasted between (90-300 min), I collected data from educationalists (15 academic staff; 21 students) at two of Gaza’s universities. Due to difficulties of access to the Gaza Strip, the participants were interviewed via Skype from Cambridge. Informed by the literature review, and triangulated with other research activities, such as reviewing participants’ CVs, browsing universities websites, and keeping a reflective journal, a thematic analysis was conducted on the interview data. Theoretically, although this study has benefited from conceptual insights, such as those found in Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed and in Pierre Bourdieu’s work on symbolic violence, it is a micro-level study, which is mainly data driven. The findings of this research show that in the past, educationalists were relatively more passive in terms of shaping their HE experiences, despite efforts to become resilient. In the present, students and their lecturers continue to face challenges that impact negatively on their participation and everyday life at Gaza’s universities. However, how the HE experience will evolve out of this context in the future is uncertain. The Arab Spring revolutions have had an influence on Gaza HE institutions’ campuses as they have triggered more awareness of students’ grievances and discontent. Because of some political and educational barriers, however, students’ voices are a cacophony; they remain split between “compliance” and resistance (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 471; Swartz, 2013, p. 39). Previously, Sara Roy (1995) rightly indicated a structure of “de-development” in the Gaza Strip (p.110). The findings from this research show that the impact of occupation and of the changes in the Arab World on the educational context in Gaza are more complex than previously thought. There is a simultaneous process of construction and destruction that is both external and internal to educationalists and which undermines academic work at Gaza’s universities. Based on this, the study concludes by explaining six implications of this complex structure for academic practice at Gaza’s universities, offering nine policy recommendations for HE reform, and highlighting six areas for future research.