Sample Law Research Paper on Comparative Law

1. Introduction

Studies affirm that the notion of whether or not faith should play a role in influencing and implementing a nation’s decrees is a sensitive one. On one hand, both faith and edict are significant in the continuation of decency. On the other hand, beliefs might vary in what they affirm to be right and wrong. Therefore, the inclusion of anyone’s belief into a state’s collated decree might impinge on the liberties of persons of a dissimilar religion. In scrutinizing these laws, it is vital that one takes into consideration the ways in which moralities vary between distinct countries. What is considered good moral conduct in one state might be uncouth misconduct in another. When determining the competence and value of certain decrees it is indispensable to have a deep understanding of the fundamental chronological background in which the decrees were inscribed and recognized.

In essence, not only is it important to understand the antiquity behind the decrees, it is equally vital to understand the ways in which contemporary ethnic interpretations and ideals influence the professed value of certain decrees. Different culturally-rooted values can cause a state to place varying primacies on certain kinds of decree. More specifically, France believes that it is more important to uphold the notion of an amalgamated equal crowd of citizens that recognize primarily as French, with all other associations remaining secluded matters than to defend the separate sacred privileges. Saudi Arabia however, places a much higher superiority on fashioning decrees that uphold sacred beliefs[1]. The state and spiritual distinctiveness in Saudi Arabia are almost one and the same. Examining the value and efficacy of the very dissimilar set of decrees in these nations must take the antiquity and the philosophy of each state into account in order to depict each arrangement quantitatively.

1. Brief Contextual History

To start with, it is vital to have a transitory understanding of some of the most contentious decrees that are in place in both France and Saudi Arabia. In this paper, the analysis will be carried out the decrees that have been considered most foundational, persuasive, and that have enthused up the most skirmishes in the country. In endeavoring to complete a further study of these decrees, there is a need for one to provide deliberately a brief contextual background of when and why these decrees were put in place. In Saudi Arabia, the rudimentary structure of control arose at the time of the issuance of King Fahd’s declaration in the ‘Official Gazette’ on March 1, the early 90s. This was just after the Iraqi assault of Kuwait as well as the main gulf war. Subsequently, before this, there was no legitimately printed rudimentary decree of supremacy that was prescribed nationally. The Saudi state instead relied upon its constitution, together with a printed agreement between two of the most protuberant intellectuals of Islamic decree at the time, Muhammed bin Saud and Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab[2]. This agreement motioned the establishment of the first Saudi State in the early 18th century[3]. Al-Wahhab’s clarifications of the Qu’ran led to the advent of a new subsection of Islam known as Wahhabi, characteristically known to be some of the severest transcribers of Islamic decree.

Increasingly, by the late 1780s, the Saudi state was ruling over the entire central plateau known as Najd. Further, in 1818, the Ottoman Empire took notice of the mounting influence of this state and inundated Diriyah, one of the headland’s major cities[4]. However, within five years the Al-Saud household had recuperated control of the state and repositioned the capital to the contemporary one in Riyadh, establishing the second Saudi state. This was followed by a period of comparative concord and financial affluence until the mid1860s when the Ottoman Empire once again wanted control of the state[5]. The contemporary king, Abdulrahman bins Faisal Al-Saud, was overawed by the Ottoman Empire’s grander military and was forced to rush for protection in the Bedouin communities and later Kuwait. In the early 1900s, the young Abdulaziz, along with a small group of men paraded by night into the capital of Riyadh in an effort to regain it for the Al-Saud household[6]. As such, this event marked the basis of the modern Saudi State[7]. Essentially, by 1932, Abdulaziz had recollected all of the Hijaz and on 23 September that year, the nation was named the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with Arabic as the national philology, and the Qu’ran its constitution[8]. The modern Kingdom has had five monarchs, King Saud, Faisal, Khalid, Fahd, and Abdullah who is presently in authority.

The kings or monarchs have communally made great dives towards constructing a better nation; particularly in the areas of education and partisan liberty[9]. For instance, King Faisal established the first public school accessible for girls; Khalid was influential in helping to form the ‘gulf cooperation council’ (GCC) which ensured economic stability for the gulf countries. Moreover, Fahd rationalized the regime and the first nationally municipal appointments were held during his sovereignty; and Abdullah has remained attentive in his denunciation of extremism and work en route for concord globally[10]. At present, the constitution for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia fulfills stringently with Shari’a decree as one of the country’s main objectives as an integrated state is to serve as an outstanding illustration for all other Muslim states.

The republic of France is presently the fifth democracy that has existed; these republics are classically the way that the French distribute their antiquity. The first comes unswervingly after the end of the French Revolt after the decapitation of King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. The Convention of the first republic (1792-99) endeavored to de-Christianize the Republic of France and adopted “the cult of the supreme being” as one of the key divine inspirations. This group concentrated on attaining virtue through intention and highlighted many philosophies not related to the Christian belief. At the beginning of the seventeenth century, a coup d’état reinstalled Napoleon as ruler and conveyed Catholicism back into influence. Here Napoleon prearranged the prefectural management, which classified all decrees, as well as founding a nationwide arrangement of education.

After Napoleon was exiled, Louis XVIII installed a constitutional monarchy; Charles X endeavored to regenerate the utter monarchy and the influence of the Catholic Church. Subsequently, insurgencies in Paris led him to abandon and his cousin, Louis-Phillipe, and took control. Colonization in Algeria marks the introduction of the second expansionist period; the Guizot laws established schools in order to have a school for boys in every community. Later, Adolphe Thiers builds defensive walls around the capital city of Paris. The second republic came about after solemn subjects arose between communal modules, leading to a social rebellion. The second republic implemented certain communist principles as liberty of the press, worldwide suffrage for males, right to work, and education, all of which were met with antagonism from the bourgeoisie. In 1848, Louis-Napoleon was elected the first president of the republic; soon thereafter, he liquefied the assembly and declared himself Emperor Napoleon III. Consequently, between the 1850s and early 1870s, France went through a progression of ‘Haussmanization’ in which Paris was rationalized and renewed. Conflicts between Napoleon III and Bismarck during the Franco-Prussian war led to the ultimate refugee of Napoleon III[11]. Prussia seized two districts of France (Alsace and a portion of Lorrain), marking the end of the second republic. The third republic of France saw the altering of the state to a more pro-republic and democratic style of control. The prominence of the waged class and labor engagements activated a sequence of social actions. Hence, persistent growth created a vast French empire and several significant lawful swings came about chiefly those that encompassed a split-up between religion and the government.

Increasingly, just after the Second World War, Alsace-Lorraine was given back to France, and by the 1940s; France was attacked and occupied by the German Nazi administration. During the Vichy administration, German or Italian forces controlled half of France. General Charles de Gaulle fortified the French to carry on in their exertions and Jean Moulin prearranged a confrontation counter to the Nazis, at this time he received aid from France’s Communist Party. Hence, after liberation, a conditional regime, headed by de Gaulle was established. Soon afterward, a popular plebiscite was embraced and thus, the constitution of the fourth republic came into being. In addition, French women lastly received the right to vote in the mid-40s. Nonetheless, Charles de Gaulle retired during the fourth republic and France became involved in numerous overseas wars taking place in both Indochina and Algeria. This motivated numerous parliamentary crunches in which numerous French army bureaucrats appalled counter to the administration leading to the ultimate reappearance to control of Charles de Gaulle. After six months of deferred regime and negotiation on the new constitution, the fifth and contemporary republic was established.

The fifth republic came about just after the failure of the fourth republic succeeding the Algiers crisis of the late 50s. The fourth republic was politically and executively unbalanced, especially after the Second World War. This led Charles De Gaulle to step in in order to draft a new constitution after he had not been on France’s partisan stage for nearly a decade. The new constitution concentrated on highlighting the dominion of the state stating in article three that, “the principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the state. No one or person may implement power, which does not originate expressly from it”; this part of the French constitution. In essence, the nation is what is most significant in the deliberation of decrees and takes superiority over the individual[12]. The current national slogan is “liberte, egalite, fraternite” which translates as “liberty, equality, brotherhood.” This emphasizes the prominence of upholding an integrated civilization with a ‘leveled’ playing field in which everybody is, in public, an equal French citizen, and in public, whatsoever they so choose to be without irreverence of the decrees.

1. Comparison of the legal systems in Saudi Arabia and France concerning religious freedoms:
2. Laws set in place in France that limits religious freedoms

             Studies affirm that even though France is a momentous focus of Catholicism brought in by the invasion of Italy and subsequent regiment influence based on this religious inclination; contemporary France has imposed an emphatic form of secularism founded on the code of laïcité. Accordingly, Laïcité was framed in order to limit the influence of the Church and keep faith out of the public sphere. Therefore, laic decrees and guidelines seek to assure religious liberty by endeavoring to demote religion to the sequestered sphere. Therefore, the French Constitution promises religious liberties but is otherwise hushed on substances of religion. These policies are supported by mainstream French citizens; however, they have come under fervor in contemporary times because of the ever-changing religious configuration of the French society[13]. Thus, since the decolonization of Africa, France has been converted into a household to a substantial Muslim marginal group, concurring with a rising acceptance of chauvinistic and ultra-pro-independence partisan arrangements like the “National Front.”

Moreover, recent statute, like a 2004 decree, which forbid students attending community institutes from wearing supposedly religious symbols. Such symbols that are inhibited by this decree include ‘Islamic headscarves,’ ‘large Christian crosses,’ and ‘Jewish kippah,’ it this has been profoundly critiqued in and outside of France as a desecration of religious autonomy. Far from being over, France has also ratified a complete ban on wearing a face-veil or “hijab” in all civic places, which regime bureaucrats have argued will continue to dispirit fundamentalism from taking basis in the republic. Furthermore, the French regime actively forbids or limits the accomplishments of religious assemblies it deliberates cults. Such groups that it has strongly deemed cults include ‘Scientology ‘and ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’ among many other minority religious factions. Substantially, from the French regime’s point of view, these guidelines on religious life are intended to guarantee a vivacious, self-governing public sphere in which all can partake on equal terms[14]. Consequently, in late 2013, a French court ordered the Saint-Quentin-Fallavier prison to offer a halal choice for Muslim prisoners, citing free workout of religion. This milestone ruling is a step towards greater religious liberty in France and is expected to be applied to all prisons not presently offering a halal alternative.

1. Laws set in place in France that protects religious freedoms

Studies reveal that the affiliation between the regime and religious conviction in France is confirmed by the early 1900s decree regarding the split-up of the house of worship and the administration. This law is stated as “Loi concernant la separation des Eglises et de l`Etat.” This decree assures freedom of conscience and it warrants the liberty the exercise of sacred practices[15]. However, these freedoms are only true if the practice is done under the sole interest of public order. As such, the state does not award acknowledgment nor recompense subventions to any church. Furthermore, the other important decree in the late 1780s declaration of the rights of man and that of the citizen. Relevant authorities legally consider this as one principle, which has legal standing with the constitution of France. In simple terms, it states that nobody will be questioned concerning his or her philosophy for religious notion, as long as such manifestation does not in any manner obstruct the communal decreed directive. Thus, this emphasizes that the law has the power to forbid actions that are a threat to society`s safety.

It is vital to note that, based on these outstanding decrees; the French administration cannot subjectively standardize and forbid religious events. This is because; it is sternly constrained to regulate religious activities to the magnitude that there is a necessity to defend civic directive. Importantly, studies affirm that the French philosophy about religious liberty never evolved out of an existing diversity of religious activities, however, it had its foundation in antiquity with “Roman Catholicism” as an official religion[16]. It received more emphasis through centuries of persecution where those who did not endorse it or those who drifted from the utmost formal route, were persecuted. An instance is pointed from the Jansenists, Cathars, and the Huguenots, which lasted until the time of the French uprising. A notable ideal in French citizenship concerns the country`s assertion on the lack of sacred conviction in all civic settings; this is commonly termed as secularism. This notion of secularism has influenced the discussions and decisions about the wearing of head mufflers by Muslim womenfolk in civic institutes. This step was motivated by the custom of keeping spiritual and partisan deliberations and ‘proselytism’ out of schools. The other motive concerns the perseveration of liberty of Muslim female students who might be obligated to put on certain outfits because of peer pressure. The specific law in this context is the French decree on non-spirituality and noticeable sacred codes in institutes. Furthermore, other than extraordinary circumstances based on historical events; the local decree, and the soldierly “chaplaincy” establishments, the French regime is inhibited by principles from giving recognition to religion. Thus, religious groups cannot be subsidized and the government cannot pay their personnel. Substantially, the regime bequests acknowledgment to legitimate units that support religious activities. Essentially, studies affirm that persons establishing as clusters with the exclusive purpose of worship are allowed to register and at the same time get significant tax exemptions as directed through established decrees.

1. Laws set in place in Saudi Arabia that limits religious freedoms

Studies show that, in Saudi Arabia, liberty of religion is neither documented nor sheltered under the edict, and the regime harshly controlled it in practice. Accordingly, the early 90s basic law, Sunni Islam is the authorized religion and the state’s constitution is the Quran and the Sunna civilizations and proverbs of the prophet Muhammad[17]. In essence, the tendency in the administration’s reverence for religious liberty did not change meaningfully throughout the years. The regime normally permitted Shia religious meetings and non-Muslim private religious perform [18]. Further, some Muslims who did not adhere to the administration’s clarification of Islam encountered momentous party-political, pecuniary, legitimate, communal, and religious judgment[19]. This included inadequate engagement and educational chances, underrepresentation in authorized organizations, limitations on devout practice, and precincts on rooms of reverence and public cores.

The regime executed at least one individual condemned on charges of wizardry and witchery during that period.[20] In essence, there were fewer described charges of pestering and abuse for religious motives at the hands of the commission for the advancement of virtue and deterrence of immorality, paralleled with the previous year, although online censure of the society augmented. Moreover, Islamic practice is limited to that of a school of the Sunni subdivision of Islam as construed by one Abd al Wahhab, who was the eighteenth-century Arab crusader[21]. As such, practices contrary to this clarification like the festivity of Muhammad`s birthday and visits to the tombs of famous Muslims are prohibited.

Increasingly, the spread of Muslim teachings that are not in kowtow with the legitimately putative construal of Islam is verboten[22]. The Saudi decrees forbid conversion by a Muslim to another religion, and this is termed apostasy. The holy city is prohibited to non-Muslims from visiting it[23]. As such, public non-Muslim activities are not allowed in Saudi Arabia; such people risk arrest, imprisonment, slamming, extradition, and torment for engaging in unconcealed spiritual accomplishments. Subsequently, the Saudi government does not allow non-Muslim clergy to enter the country for the reasons of conducting religious services. Essentially, proselytizing by non-Muslims; the distribution of non-Muslim religious materials such as Bibles is illegal. Moreover, non-Muslims and Muslims who wear sacred ciphers of any kind in civic is in danger of hostility with the mutawwa`in

1. Laws set in place in Saudi Arabia that protects religious freedoms

Studies indicate that the Saudi government does not demonstrate a trend towards either improvement or deterioration in terms of respect for or protection of the right to religious freedom. Accordingly, freedom of religion is neither recognized nor protected at the first instance under the law. However, this freedom is severely restricted in practice; based on the early 90s basic law, the government officially recognized Sunni Islam as the country`s only region[24]. Accordingly, it draws its constitutional basis on the Qur`an; thus, the regime`s application of the hanbali school of Sunni Islam jurisprudence forms the basis of the legal system in Saudi Arabia[25]. Founded on this, the practice of any region other than Islam is highly prohibited, since there is no split-up between the regime and religious conviction. Islam, especially Sunni Islam is part of the government because it forms the basis of its operation and existence, thus, Islam in Saudi is highly protected.

Accordingly, the Saudi government has gone steps ahead even to have religious police who carry out spontaneous raids on illegal religious activities in the country; this forms one of the major arms of the same government that protects Islam[26]. Generally, the government permits some form of religious freedom with limitations; here, Shia religious gatherings and non-Muslim are allowed to carry out private religious practices to a certain degree. For instance, as long as they conduct their practices in private localities other than private-public gatherings, the state does permit this. Recent studies indicate that the Saudi government has maintained its prohibition on public non-Muslim religious activities across the state. Further, it protects its Sunni version of Islam through restriction of non-Sunni activities in predominantly Sunni areas.

1. Compare and contrast the laws in place in France and Saudi Arabia.

Findings show that the similarity of French and Saudi laws comes in terms of company laws. At this, point, studies reveal that the overall structure of the Saudi company law was derived from French law through Egyptian law. Accordingly, the companies regulation commonly referred to as the royal decree, which corresponds to the 60s Gregorian. This decree encompasses an extensive variety of features concerning “incorporation,” “regulation,” “merger,” “liquidation,’ and “dissolution” of numerous varied corporates[27]. Generally, the company law takes more directives from the initial French company laws, which came into existence in the country as an influence of the Egyptian system, which itself was a result of the French legal system. In general, terms there is a huge inspiration of the French decree on the permissible growth of the Saudi state[28]. This comes out because of the fact that Saudi draws its laws from the Quran, the sharia. However, the sharia law does not cover many economic legal aspects; thus, the Saudi regime integrates French versions of economic aspects of the law with sharia law. As such, the preceding discussions revealed how the country has used this to formulate its own suitable company laws by making various amendments to the 60s initial company law emulated from the French version of Egypt.

On the other hand, there various opposing laws. To start with, based on Saudi Arabia`s interpretation of the Quran as its constitution and sharia as its laws, the Sunni Islam religious practices are supposed to be followed throughout[29]. As such, Islamic clothing like veils or headscarves is part of the religious practices in Saudi as an Islamic state[30]. On the other hand, France has its new law that bans face veils, which when in place recently. This law inhibits schools from attending or visiting public places while wearing any religious symbols like the hijab.

III.       Why the current laws on religious freedoms exist in France and Saudi Arabia:

1. Historical reasons for the laws in France.

To begin with, in a recent account of law formulation that hit headlines across major media avenues, there are a few aspects behind this great law formulated by the French government. As such, the French government spearheads the drafting and implementation of the decree that denied all Muslim students that attended public schools the right to wear face veils[31]. The historical context that led to the drafting of the law was founded on the events that had occurred around the world, where extremists had used or taken advantage of the veils to carry out their evil activities without being noticed. Thus, the French government became under pressure for its national safety following the same moves that Belgium and other countries had taken to increase surveillance against Muslim insurgents. On the other hand, regarding the Falloux law, which was promulgated in the context where French Catholics were anxious about the increasing role of the state in education since the 1780s revolt[32]. People thought that the imperial education system diffused too much the enlightenment notion. Thus people pushed for reforms to make the education system return to the ancient regime`s bases.

1. Cultural reasons for the laws in France.

At the same time regarding the law against wearing, veils were formulated on a social or cultural basis. To being with, French society is more civilized in the way of wearing clothes. As such, the Muslim outfits seemingly did not for many other reasons fit in the French cultural or social setting well. Hence, the French legislative arm acted upon this decree as a way to help Muslim students from being victimized by peer pressure on their outfits[33]. Thus, it sought to protect Muslim student’s religious freedom by making schools and other public places neutral to religious issues. The French revolt, which was a force behind many reforms, was pegged on the societal or social upheaval in the political context of France[34]. This forced caused many radical changes to forms based on enlightenment principles of republicanism. Moreover, such changes came with violent turmoil; executions, and repression during the reign of terror. The revolt was against the absolute power of the king and against the privileges and wealth of the elite; this was perpetrated in the name of liberty, equality, and fraternity. The other thing was because of the French rationalist culture, which was not perceived well by many people. Thus, it received a lot of resistance forcing legislatures to formulate some of the laws as discussed earlier.

1. Historical reasons for the laws in Saudi Arabia.

            Concerning the laws created in Saudi Arabia, there are historical contexts behind the established laws. To begin with, after the birth of the prophet Muhammad and his preaching of the unification of Muslims under the Islam umbrella, many things came into being. This started the waves of creating an Arab kingdom based on the Islamic standards he had initiated. Accordingly, after the formation of the Saudi kingdom or state, the king was made the head of state and the head of government. In essence, decisions are made based on consultation among senior princes of the royal family and the religious establishments. After Muhammad`s unification of Arabs, he offered them what they supposed was a memorandum from god, the Quran[35]. Accordingly, the Quran is declared the constitution of the country, and it automatically made the Saudi state become under the governorship based on Islamic law. As such, all the laws that work in Saudi state are based on what Muhammad stipulated in the Quran; however, here are a few reforms that exist, which allow accommodation of certain aspects like economic, technological, and international relations.

1. Cultural reasons for the laws in Saudi Arabia.

            To start with, life in Saudi Arabia is all dependent on Islamic influence; this is because the government is one and the same as religion. Sunni Islam being its official region, all activities are done according to the Sunni governmental interpretations or values. The basic law is drawn from the religious and cultural practices of the majority Sunni[36]. Thus, this is an important piece or source of law that has over the years influenced legal, political, and economical aspects of the nation. Consequently, Sunni cultural values coupled with the interpretation of the Quran through sharia helps to formulate laws, which are culturally acceptable. For instance, laws about adultery and alcohol have a cultural basis in them.

1. Implications of laws on devout liberties in France and Saudi Arabia:
2. Enforcement of the laws.

Because of set laws, concerning regions, some have been discriminating and some have helped to balance things. To start with, the contemporary law on the wearing of headscarves and hijab has heard both positive and negative. For instance, the law has helped the nation to limit the threat of extremists who would have hidden their identity behind face veils to gain entry into the country and do evil or terrorism-related violence[37]. However, the law has infringed Muslim rights of worship because the veil is part of their religious practice. On the other hand, laws directed towards some religious groups in France have caused people to have a negative attitude towards them. Such laws have labeled numerous religious groups as cults an effort, which limits their operations and influence. However, some laws, which separated the government from the region, thus reducing some of the powers or dominance of some religious groups or Catholicism. In Saudi, the laws have created dominance of Sunni Islam over other fashions of Islam, which has led to discrimination of some minority groups[38]. However, some laws have helped in minimizing criminal activities based on tough rules that are associated with

1. Effect on the people and/or government.

In France, the laws have caused a peaceful coexistence between the government and religious groups. In Saudi, laws have affected positively the government where they help it discharge its duties well without too much struggle in making or creating laws[39]. Further, in both countries laws have been used to discriminate against people. For instance, contemporary law in France denies Muslim students their religious rights through the prohibition on wearing veils. Again, Saudi laws have been using to discriminate against minority Shia, Christians, and Jews, and at some point, it has caused people to lose their lives through executions.

1. Analysis:
2. Need for legal diversity in different countries.

Every nation requires to have its own sets of rules because of various reasons; for instance, it is noted that every nation has its own cultures and beliefs that are quite different from the other, therefore, having laws that apply to the whole world may not benefit countries with different cultures. There are countries that believe a certain action or behavior is welcome, while others may not promote such an act, thus the significance of having a diversity of law in different countries. Accordingly, every nation has its own disputes that can only be resolved by its own laws; furthermore, others have laws that occur because of religion and tradition therefore, may not be significant to have a common law worldwide. A situation in point is the question of Saudi Arabia, which is still deeply rooted in laws that stemmed from religion and tradition despite its determination to join the rest of the world in having a harmonized law[40]. Communal decrees, which regularly relate to womenfolk, are severe; this implies that women are not permitted to use cars or be with a gentleman who is not related to her or go in a public place in casual clothes. Accordingly, there is strict law regarding accessing the Internet, and editors may be sacked or arrested if they permit to publish any content that talks something negative about the government. Therefore, such laws in Saudi Arabia may not apply to every country thus the need for diversity in different countries.

1. Efficacy of Laws.

These laws are efficient because they have the intention of encouraging individuals to do the right thing. There are theories that argue that people required the chastisement of the decree to familiarize them into achieving the precise item, from which view they could then comprehend why undertaking the factual thing was the correct thing to do. For instance, the law in Saudi Arabia concerning women not going out in casual clothes is to make them look descent all the time, and thus avoid promoting any immoral behavior[41]. Accordingly, the creation of law in France helped to evoke the absolute power of the king as well as the abolishment of the monarch. Furthermore, France has been able to resolve threats or attain security from extremists; this is because the extremists had taken the advantage of using face veils to hide their identity of some of the attacks they had launched in some parts of the world.

1. Analysis of whether the current laws are the best for the nation.

From the previous discussions, it was found that the official religion in Saudi is the Sunni version of Islam, which is to be practiced by everyone. Moreover, the constitution is the Quran and the basic law comes from the government`s interpretation of the basic laws as guided by the Quran teachings. Accordingly, the laws have been helpful for the nations since many political issues or struggle to pass laws and reject some has been reduced to the simple interpretation of the Quran[42]. The process of drafting the constitution or amending some of the parts of a constitution. In essence, this has helped the nation to emerge from a desert middle-level country to a technologically driven country as the discovery of oil has led to the modernization of various infrastructures without many legislative procedures. The decrees in France on the other hand,  have helped the nation to avoid previous conflicts it had with the church, especially because of Catholicism and other matters[43]. The nation has been able to set a new course through various political, economical, and legal aspects, which have seen legislative advances for a better system of governance in place today.

1. Analysis of whether the laws are the best for the people.

On the contrary, the decrees in Saudi Arabia have not been good, this is because the state depends on the Sunni version of Islam, thus the Shia people have suffered a great deal of discrimination[44]. This ranges from political, legal, to economic issues; this discrimination is directed to those who do not practice the Sunni activities and instead practice the Shia activities of religion. Furthermore, many non-Muslim individuals have been persecuted because of their religious practices deemed illegal in the country. On the other hand, based on the basic laws about crime and murder, its application has reduced such incidences among the people and thus beneficial. On the other hand, freedom of worship accorded to citizens of France has allowed people to practice freely their religious rights without inhibition, as long as they do not inhibit the functioning of the set rules or peace of the nation[45]. Some of the laws have helped to eliminate extremist threats by banning the use of face veils and headscarves in public places as well as schools[46]. Furthermore, the contemporary French laws have helped some Muslim students to avoid peer pressure through neutral consumption that does not reflect their religious identity.

1. Conclusion.

Throughout the discussions, it was found that faith and decrees in a nation are essential for decency. Because faith will determine the kind of decrees and at the same time, decrees will determine the kind of faith that a nation permits. Thus, faith and decrees are mutually dependent aspects that lead to a prosperous or fallen nation. Hence, surveying the significance and effectiveness of the very divergent set of verdicts in these states had to take the antiquity and the beliefs of each state into consideration in order to depict each organization quantitatively. Based on the findings, it’s vital for every nation to have its own set of decrees; this is normally associated with every state`s history as well as cultural contexts that influence the formulation of the decrees.

 

References

ALAIN MARCIANO, DEMOCRACY, FREEDOM AND COERCION: A LAW AND ECONOMICS APPROACH, (2007). http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=OqNz0mxnlAAC&dq=Comparison+of+the+legal+systems+in+Saudi+Arabia+and+France+with+regards+to+religious+freedoms

ALIANAK SONIA, MIDDLE EASTERN LEADERS AND ISLAM: A PRECARIOUS EQUILIBRIUM, 67 (2007). Retrieved on 18^th March 2014 from: < www.waterstones.com/…/sonia+alianak/middle+eastern+leaders…>

JAN MICHIEL, SHARIA INCORPORATED, (2010).  http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=8ep7cX3ma0sC&dq=Comparison+of+the+legal+systems+in+Saudi+Arabia+and+France+with+regards+to+religious+freedoms

NIGEL ASTON, RELIGION AND REVOLUTION IN FRANCE, 1780-1804, 45 (2000). Retrieved on 18^th March 2014 from: < http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/cat/summary/v088/88.1tackett.html>

NIGEL ASTON, RELIGIOUS CHANGE IN EUROPE 1650-1914, 50 (2007). Retrieved  on 18^th March 2014 from : < www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/…/acprof-9780198205968‎>

PAULINE CÔTÉ, NOUVELLE QUESTION, (2006). http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=r40UkhqEG8C&dq=Comparison+of+the+legal+systems+in+Saudi+Arabia+and+France+with+regards+to+religious+freedomss

PHILIP K. HITTI, HISTORY OF THE ARABS, 55 (2002).

ROBERT LACEY, THE KINGDOM: ARABIA AND THE HOUSE OF SAUD, 426 (2008).

STEWART J. BROWN & TIMOTHY TACKETT, THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, 38 (2006).

[1] PAULINE CÔTÉ, NOUVELLE QUESTION, (2006). http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=r40UkhqEG8C&dq=Comparison+of+the+legal+systems+in+Saudi+Arabia+and+France+with+regards+to+religious+freedomss

[2] PHILIP K. HITTI, HISTORY OF THE ARABS, 55 (2002).

[3] PHILIP K. HITTI, HISTORY OF THE ARABS, 55 (2002).

[4] STEWART J. BROWN & TIMOTHY TACKETT, THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, 38 (2006).

[5] ALAIN MARCIANO, DEMOCRACY, FREEDOM AND COERCION: A LAW AND ECONOMICS APPROACH, (2007). http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=OqNz0mxnlAAC&dq=Comparison+of+the+legal+systems+in+Saudi+Arabia+and+France+with+regards+to+religious+freedoms

[6] ROBERT LACEY, THE KINGDOM: ARABIA AND THE HOUSE OF SAUD, 426 (2008).

[7] PHILIP K. HITTI, HISTORY OF THE ARABS, 55 (2002).

[8] ALIANAK SONIA, MIDDLE EASTERN LEADERS AND ISLAM: A PRECARIOUS EQUILIBRIUM, 67 (2007). Retrieved on 18th March 2014 from: < www.waterstones.com/…/sonia+alianak/middle+eastern+leaders…>

[9] STEWART J. BROWN & TIMOTHY TACKETT, THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, 38 (2006).

[10] PHILIP K. HITTI, HISTORY OF THE ARABS, 55 (2002).

 

[11] STEWART J. BROWN & TIMOTHY TACKETT, THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, 38 (2006).

[12] STEWART J. BROWN & TIMOTHY TACKETT, THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, 38 (2006).

[13] STEWART J. BROWN & TIMOTHY TACKETT, THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, 38 (2006).

[14] ALIANAK SONIA, MIDDLE EASTERN LEADERS AND ISLAM: A PRECARIOUS EQUILIBRIUM, 67 (2007). Retrieved on 18th March 2014 from: < www.waterstones.com/…/sonia+alianak/middle+eastern+leaders…>

[15] NIGEL ASTON, RELIGION AND REVOLUTION IN FRANCE, 1780-1804, 45 (2000). Retrieved on 18th March 2014 from < http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/cat/summary/v088/88.1tackett.html>

[16]STEWART J. BROWN & TIMOTHY TACKETT, THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, 38 (2006).

[17] PHILIP K. HITTI, HISTORY OF THE ARABS, 55 (2002).

[18] ROBERT LACEY, THE KINGDOM: ARABIA AND THE HOUSE OF SAUD, 426 (2008).

[19] ALIANAK SONIA, MIDDLE EASTERN LEADERS AND ISLAM: A PRECARIOUS EQUILIBRIUM, 67 (2007). Retrieved on 18th March 2014 from: < www.waterstones.com/…/sonia+alianak/middle+eastern+leaders…>

[20] JAN MICHIEL, SHARIA INCORPORATED, (2010).  http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=8ep7cX3ma0sC&dq=Comparison+of+the+legal+systems+in+Saudi+Arabia+and+France+with+regards+to+religious+freedoms

[21] PHILIP K. HITTI, HISTORY OF THE ARABS, 55 (2002).

[22] PHILIP K. HITTI, HISTORY OF THE ARABS, 55 (2002).

[23] STEWART J. BROWN & TIMOTHY TACKETT, THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, 38 (2006).

[24] ROBERT LACEY, THE KINGDOM: ARABIA AND THE HOUSE OF SAUD, 426 (2008).

[25] PHILIP K. HITTI, HISTORY OF THE ARABS, 55 (2002).

[26] PHILIP K. HITTI, HISTORY OF THE ARABS, 55 (2002).

[27] NIGEL ASTON, RELIGIOUS CHANGE IN EUROPE 1650-1914, 50 (2007). Retrieved  on 18th March 2014 from : < www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/…/acprof-9780198205968‎>

[28] STEWART J. BROWN & TIMOTHY TACKETT, THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, 38 (2006).

[29] PHILIP K. HITTI, HISTORY OF THE ARABS, 55 (2002).

[30] ROBERT LACEY, THE KINGDOM: ARABIA AND THE HOUSE OF SAUD, 426 (2008).

[31] NIGEL ASTON, RELIGIOUS CHANGE IN EUROPE 1650-1914, 50 (2007). Retrieved  on 18^th March 2014 from : < www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/…/acprof-9780198205968‎>

 

[32] STEWART J. BROWN & TIMOTHY TACKETT, THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, 38 (2006).

[33] NIGEL ASTON, RELIGIOUS CHANGE IN EUROPE 1650-1914, 50 (2007). Retrieved  on 18^th March 2014 from : < www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/…/acprof-9780198205968‎>

[34] STEWART J. BROWN & TIMOTHY TACKETT, THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, 38 (2006).

[35] PHILIP K. HITTI, HISTORY OF THE ARABS, 55 (2002).

[36] PHILIP K. HITTI, HISTORY OF THE ARABS, 55 (2002).

[37] PHILIP K. HITTI, HISTORY OF THE ARABS, 55 (2002).

[38] STEWART J. BROWN & TIMOTHY TACKETT, THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, 38 (2006).

[39] PHILIP K. HITTI, HISTORY OF THE ARABS, 55 (2002).

[40] PHILIP K. HITTI, HISTORY OF THE ARABS, 55 (2002).

[41] PHILIP K. HITTI, HISTORY OF THE ARABS, 55 (2002).

[42] PHILIP K. HITTI, HISTORY OF THE ARABS, 55 (2002).

[43] NIGEL ASTON, RELIGIOUS CHANGE IN EUROPE 1650-1914, 50 (2007). Retrieved  on 18^th March 2014 from : < www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/…/acprof-9780198205968‎>

 

[44] ROBERT LACEY, THE KINGDOM: ARABIA AND THE HOUSE OF SAUD, 426 (2008).

[45] PHILIP K. HITTI, HISTORY OF THE ARABS, 55 (2002).

[46] NIGEL ASTON, RELIGIOUS CHANGE IN EUROPE 1650-1914, 50 (2007). Retrieved  on 18^th March 2014 from : < www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/…/acprof-9780198205968‎>