Abstract Women’s political leadership is one of the abiding controversial issues among Muslim scholars. The question of whether a Muslim woman can lead in her country is generally answered negatively by Muslim scholars, but some modern scholars explicitly support women’s political leadership without any restriction. Where the scholars stand on the issue is influenced by their social context. With the intent of examining the interaction between social context and Islamic legal methodologies in fatwās—Isalmic legal opinions—related to women, the author discusses as exemplary texts the fatwās issued by two well-known religious institutions, the Dār al-Iftā’ in Saudi Arabia and the Diyanet in Turkey. The institutions function in different social contexts: Saudi Arabia is a theocratic monarchy that applies Islamic law; Turkey is a democratic country whose legal system is based on a secular law. Through a detailed analysis of the spatio-temporal fatwās regarding women’s political leadership, the author provides insight into the influence of contextual elements during the process of issuing fatwās, suggesting that these differences of opinion among Muslim scholars and religious institutions will continue.
{"title":"Women’s Political Leadership: One Question and Two Divergent Fatwās","authors":"E. Yakar","doi":"10.1017/jlr.2022.15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jlr.2022.15","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Women’s political leadership is one of the abiding controversial issues among Muslim scholars. The question of whether a Muslim woman can lead in her country is generally answered negatively by Muslim scholars, but some modern scholars explicitly support women’s political leadership without any restriction. Where the scholars stand on the issue is influenced by their social context. With the intent of examining the interaction between social context and Islamic legal methodologies in fatwās—Isalmic legal opinions—related to women, the author discusses as exemplary texts the fatwās issued by two well-known religious institutions, the Dār al-Iftā’ in Saudi Arabia and the Diyanet in Turkey. The institutions function in different social contexts: Saudi Arabia is a theocratic monarchy that applies Islamic law; Turkey is a democratic country whose legal system is based on a secular law. Through a detailed analysis of the spatio-temporal fatwās regarding women’s political leadership, the author provides insight into the influence of contextual elements during the process of issuing fatwās, suggesting that these differences of opinion among Muslim scholars and religious institutions will continue.","PeriodicalId":44042,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Religion","volume":"212 1","pages":"334 - 364"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80529725","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Throughout U.S. history, law enforcement agencies and other departments in federal, state and local governments have overreacted to perceived threats to American security in times of war or "quasi-war" and have violated civil liberties. At the very beginning of the Republic, when the new American nation was in danger of becoming embroiled in the wars between France and England, our Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts. Under those Acts, Congressmen and journalists were arrested, convicted and imprisoned simply for criticizing the government. In the Civil War, as is well known, President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and in many cases military tribunals were used inappropriately and illegally. In World War I, Congress once again passed many laws, ostensibly in support of the war effort, that violated basic human rights, such as freedom of speech and association. For example, Eugene Victor Debs, a socialist who had received millions of votes as a Presidential candidate, was convicted and imprisoned because he spoke out, with others, in opposition to the draft. After World War I, when there was significant concern about Bolshevism after the Russian Revolution, the government engaged in the so-called "Palmer raids," a series of raids on, and arrests of, suspected radicals, many of whom were immigrants. Indeed, the A.C.L.U. was first founded to challenge those arrests. World War II saw one of the greatest stains on American democracy and certainly one of the greatest overreactions, the internment of Japanese Americans in response to claimed national security threats stemming from our war with Japan. U.S. citizens of Japanese origin were detained without any evidence that they were any danger to our security. In retrospect, this internment has been shown by competent scholars and military officials to have been absolutely unnecessary as well as a horrendous violation of civil liberties. Similarly, in the so-called "Cold War" we had periods of McCarthyism that included widespread blacklisting and other abuses at
纵观美国历史，联邦、州和地方政府的执法机构和其他部门在战争或“准战争”时期对美国安全面临的威胁反应过度，侵犯了公民自由。在共和国成立之初，当新生的美国有卷入英法战争的危险时，我们的国会通过了《外国人法》和《煽动叛乱法》。根据这些法案，国会议员和记者仅仅因为批评政府就被逮捕、定罪和监禁。众所周知，在南北战争中，林肯总统暂停了人身保护令，在许多情况下，军事法庭被不当和非法地使用。在第一次世界大战中，国会再次通过了许多表面上支持战争的法律，这些法律侵犯了言论自由和结社自由等基本人权。例如，尤金·维克多·德布斯(Eugene Victor Debs)是一位社会主义者，他作为总统候选人获得了数百万张选票，却因为与其他人一起公开反对征兵而被定罪并监禁。第一次世界大战后，俄国革命后，人们对布尔什维主义产生了极大的担忧，政府开展了所谓的“帕尔默突袭”，对涉嫌激进分子进行了一系列突袭和逮捕，其中许多人是移民。事实上，美国公民自由联盟成立之初就是为了挑战这些逮捕。第二次世界大战见证了美国民主最严重的污点之一，当然也是最严重的过度反应之一，即对日裔美国人的拘留，以回应我们与日本的战争所造成的国家安全威胁。日裔美国公民在没有任何证据表明他们对我们的安全构成任何威胁的情况下被拘留。回想起来，有能力的学者和军事官员已经证明，这种拘留是绝对不必要的，而且是对公民自由的可怕侵犯。同样，在所谓的“冷战”时期，我们经历了麦卡锡主义时期，包括广泛的黑名单和其他滥用权力的行为
{"title":"Critique","authors":"J. Onek","doi":"10.2307/3649165","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3649165","url":null,"abstract":"Throughout U.S. history, law enforcement agencies and other departments in federal, state and local governments have overreacted to perceived threats to American security in times of war or \"quasi-war\" and have violated civil liberties. At the very beginning of the Republic, when the new American nation was in danger of becoming embroiled in the wars between France and England, our Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts. Under those Acts, Congressmen and journalists were arrested, convicted and imprisoned simply for criticizing the government. In the Civil War, as is well known, President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and in many cases military tribunals were used inappropriately and illegally. In World War I, Congress once again passed many laws, ostensibly in support of the war effort, that violated basic human rights, such as freedom of speech and association. For example, Eugene Victor Debs, a socialist who had received millions of votes as a Presidential candidate, was convicted and imprisoned because he spoke out, with others, in opposition to the draft. After World War I, when there was significant concern about Bolshevism after the Russian Revolution, the government engaged in the so-called \"Palmer raids,\" a series of raids on, and arrests of, suspected radicals, many of whom were immigrants. Indeed, the A.C.L.U. was first founded to challenge those arrests. World War II saw one of the greatest stains on American democracy and certainly one of the greatest overreactions, the internment of Japanese Americans in response to claimed national security threats stemming from our war with Japan. U.S. citizens of Japanese origin were detained without any evidence that they were any danger to our security. In retrospect, this internment has been shown by competent scholars and military officials to have been absolutely unnecessary as well as a horrendous violation of civil liberties. Similarly, in the so-called \"Cold War\" we had periods of McCarthyism that included widespread blacklisting and other abuses at","PeriodicalId":44042,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Religion","volume":"29 1","pages":"85 - 87"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88489910","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Conservative activists and politicians have condemned critical race theory and have supported measures to prohibit teaching the subject in public schools. The anti-critical race theory movement is part of broader social movement activity inspired by the 2020 presidential election. Many conservatives view Donald Trump's defeat as a victory for antiracism. In response, they have portrayed the election as a product of fraud, enacted laws that will make it more difficult for people of color to vote, endorsed measures that would chill antiracist political activism, and banned instruction related to contemporary antiracist theory. These practices have been employed historically in response to antiracism. This history should guide social justice advocates as they analyze the meaning of countermovement activity and build strategies of resistance.
{"title":"Continuous Action toward Justice","authors":"Darren Lenard Hutchinson","doi":"10.1017/jlr.2022.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jlr.2022.2","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Conservative activists and politicians have condemned critical race theory and have supported measures to prohibit teaching the subject in public schools. The anti-critical race theory movement is part of broader social movement activity inspired by the 2020 presidential election. Many conservatives view Donald Trump's defeat as a victory for antiracism. In response, they have portrayed the election as a product of fraud, enacted laws that will make it more difficult for people of color to vote, endorsed measures that would chill antiracist political activism, and banned instruction related to contemporary antiracist theory. These practices have been employed historically in response to antiracism. This history should guide social justice advocates as they analyze the meaning of countermovement activity and build strategies of resistance.","PeriodicalId":44042,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Religion","volume":"4 1","pages":"63 - 71"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81233836","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"JLR volume 37 issue 1 Cover and Front matter","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/jlr.2022.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jlr.2022.11","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44042,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Religion","volume":"1 1","pages":"f1 - f5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77355190","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Reflections on the Power of Relentless Creativity","authors":"Tiffany Hale","doi":"10.1017/jlr.2021.85","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jlr.2021.85","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44042,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Religion","volume":"16 1","pages":"196 - 198"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77734952","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"JLR volume 37 issue 1 Cover and Back matter","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/jlr.2022.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jlr.2022.12","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44042,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Religion","volume":"67 1","pages":"b1 - b2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90687893","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
I am humbled to have had such close and perceptive readings of a book that I had always imagined as successful if it convened further conversation. My interlocutors in this symposium are people whose work and example I admire deeply, and readers are encouraged to take note of their contributions to the conversation beyond these pages. Would that I could respond comprehensively to each query and comment; in the interest of concision, I have organized my response around a series of points of convergence and trajectories for new inquiry. Readers may appreciate a brief initial statement from me about the shape of the book. Here is how I begin Defend the Sacred:
{"title":"Author's Response","authors":"M. D. McNally","doi":"10.1017/jlr.2021.91","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jlr.2021.91","url":null,"abstract":"I am humbled to have had such close and perceptive readings of a book that I had always imagined as successful if it convened further conversation. My interlocutors in this symposium are people whose work and example I admire deeply, and readers are encouraged to take note of their contributions to the conversation beyond these pages. Would that I could respond comprehensively to each query and comment; in the interest of concision, I have organized my response around a series of points of convergence and trajectories for new inquiry. Readers may appreciate a brief initial statement from me about the shape of the book. Here is how I begin Defend the Sacred:","PeriodicalId":44042,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Religion","volume":"35 1","pages":"199 - 206"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75130308","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A Tribute to Marie Failinger","authors":"Emily A Hartigan","doi":"10.1017/jlr.2021.86","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jlr.2021.86","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44042,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Religion","volume":"211 1","pages":"2 - 4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83469858","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
I am grateful for the opportunity to read and discuss this provocative and deeply learned new book. With Defend the Sacred, Michael McNally has produced an immensely valuable work that combines meticulous explanations with strong, creative, and, above all, useful arguments. I am a religious studies scholar who is often critical of religious freedom, and this book is just what I needed to read. McNally grants the legitimacy of the critiques raised both by many interested parties and by religious studies scholars. And he generally agrees that religion is a colonialist category; religious freedom privileges individual believers; it perpetuates racial liberalism; and Native Americans almost always lose free-exercise cases. This book is not a call to double down on the narrow protections of First Amendment free exercise claims, hoping that the protection of sacred sites, for instance, will eventually be regarded by federal judges as a matter of ensuring the protection of sincerely held beliefs. Indeed, McNally takes the failures of free-exercise claims not as an occasion to abandon religious freedom but as an invitation to think more capaciously, creatively, and strategically about what religious freedom is and can do. Other contributors to this forum are better equipped than I am to assess the plausibility and promise of McNally’s suggestions. In many ways, McNally thinks like a lawyer (here, I mean that as a compliment), which is to say, strategically, in order to accomplish his aims. In so doing, though, he is not doctrinaire or pedantic; he has a pragmatic will to try, to collaborate and experiment and see what works. This is an approach to law and religion that is too rare, and I found it a refreshingly practical, sensible, and grounding book to think with. Leaving the more fine-grain analysis to those with more expertise, I respond to this book by discussing three related clusters of thoughts it provoked. In what follows, I first put McNally’s work in conversation with secularism studies and ask what this book can teach us about how secular governance works in practice. Second, I think with McNally about spirituality and sincere belief. And finally, I conclude with some brief thoughts on the postsecular and the sacred.
{"title":"Secularism and the Freedom to (Self-)Regulate: A Response to Michael McNally's Defend the Sacred","authors":"Charles McCrary","doi":"10.1017/jlr.2021.77","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jlr.2021.77","url":null,"abstract":"I am grateful for the opportunity to read and discuss this provocative and deeply learned new book. With Defend the Sacred, Michael McNally has produced an immensely valuable work that combines meticulous explanations with strong, creative, and, above all, useful arguments. I am a religious studies scholar who is often critical of religious freedom, and this book is just what I needed to read. McNally grants the legitimacy of the critiques raised both by many interested parties and by religious studies scholars. And he generally agrees that religion is a colonialist category; religious freedom privileges individual believers; it perpetuates racial liberalism; and Native Americans almost always lose free-exercise cases. This book is not a call to double down on the narrow protections of First Amendment free exercise claims, hoping that the protection of sacred sites, for instance, will eventually be regarded by federal judges as a matter of ensuring the protection of sincerely held beliefs. Indeed, McNally takes the failures of free-exercise claims not as an occasion to abandon religious freedom but as an invitation to think more capaciously, creatively, and strategically about what religious freedom is and can do. Other contributors to this forum are better equipped than I am to assess the plausibility and promise of McNally’s suggestions. In many ways, McNally thinks like a lawyer (here, I mean that as a compliment), which is to say, strategically, in order to accomplish his aims. In so doing, though, he is not doctrinaire or pedantic; he has a pragmatic will to try, to collaborate and experiment and see what works. This is an approach to law and religion that is too rare, and I found it a refreshingly practical, sensible, and grounding book to think with. Leaving the more fine-grain analysis to those with more expertise, I respond to this book by discussing three related clusters of thoughts it provoked. In what follows, I first put McNally’s work in conversation with secularism studies and ask what this book can teach us about how secular governance works in practice. Second, I think with McNally about spirituality and sincere belief. And finally, I conclude with some brief thoughts on the postsecular and the sacred.","PeriodicalId":44042,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Religion","volume":"10 1","pages":"191 - 195"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75169674","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Editor's Note: New Developments at JLR","authors":"Silas W. Allard","doi":"10.1017/jlr.2021.80","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jlr.2021.80","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44042,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Religion","volume":"38 1","pages":"1 - 1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76903018","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：