Pub Date : 2023-03-30DOI: 10.1163/15685195-30010000
{"title":"Front matter","authors":"","doi":"10.1163/15685195-30010000","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685195-30010000","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":55965,"journal":{"name":"Islamic Law and Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135419781","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-28DOI: 10.1163/15685195-bja10039
Edith X. Chen
Prior to the Mongol invasion of Iran in the 7th/13th century, Ḥanafī jurists had adopted two definitions of Islamic lands (dār al-islām): according to a “lenient” definition attributed to Abū Ḥanīfa, an unbelieving ruler may rule over dār al-islām, and according to a “strict” definition attributed to Abū Yūsuf and al-Shaybānī, he may not. As the Mongols overran Central Asia and Iran, later Ḥanafīs began to favor the lenient definition so that lands under non-Muslim occupation might retain the status of dār al-islām as long as Muslims had security and the freedom to worship. In this article, I evaluate the assumptions about Mongol rule that underpin the lenient definition. Persian historians such as Waṣṣāf and Shabānkāraʾī report that the Mongols permitted self-rule, and Muslims were adjudicated in their own courts according to Islamic law. Local histories support the claim that Islamic life can continue under occupation by nonbelievers.
{"title":"An Unbeliever Can Rule Dār al-Islām: Ḥanafī Law in the Wake of the Mongol Invasion","authors":"Edith X. Chen","doi":"10.1163/15685195-bja10039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685195-bja10039","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Prior to the Mongol invasion of Iran in the 7th/13th century, Ḥanafī jurists had adopted two definitions of Islamic lands (dār al-islām): according to a “lenient” definition attributed to Abū Ḥanīfa, an unbelieving ruler may rule over dār al-islām, and according to a “strict” definition attributed to Abū Yūsuf and al-Shaybānī, he may not. As the Mongols overran Central Asia and Iran, later Ḥanafīs began to favor the lenient definition so that lands under non-Muslim occupation might retain the status of dār al-islām as long as Muslims had security and the freedom to worship. In this article, I evaluate the assumptions about Mongol rule that underpin the lenient definition. Persian historians such as Waṣṣāf and Shabānkāraʾī report that the Mongols permitted self-rule, and Muslims were adjudicated in their own courts according to Islamic law. Local histories support the claim that Islamic life can continue under occupation by nonbelievers.","PeriodicalId":55965,"journal":{"name":"Islamic Law and Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48327355","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-28DOI: 10.1163/15685195-bja10040
Clément Salah
Bien que reconnu comme une autorité juridique importante de l’époque de formation de la doctrine juridique mālikite (iie-iiie/viiie-ixe siècle), Ašhab b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (m. 204/820) est dépeint dans les sources narratives postérieures au ive/xe siècle comme un savant ayant divergé voire contredit la doctrine du « maître fondateur » Mālik b. Anas (m. 179/795). Cet article interroge l’apparente divergence et indépendance d’Ašhab par l’analyse de sept anecdotes consignées dans la littérature biographique mālikite entre le ive/xe et le vie/xiie siècle. En replaçant ces anecdotes dans leurs contextes politiques, sociaux et doctrinaux de rédaction nous soulignons que : 1. la divergence d’Ašhab est une construction historique qui est 2. le corollaire de l’évolution de la doctrine juridique mālikite entre le iiie/ixe et le vie/xiie siècle. In fine, nous montrons qu’une interconnexion existe entre la tradition biographique construite sur Ašhab et l’évolution du maḏhab (école de doctrinale de droit) mālikite.
{"title":"Ašhab b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (m. 204/820) et l’évolution du maḏhab mālikite (iiie-vie/Ixe-xiie siècle)","authors":"Clément Salah","doi":"10.1163/15685195-bja10040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685195-bja10040","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Bien que reconnu comme une autorité juridique importante de l’époque de formation de la doctrine juridique mālikite (iie-iiie/viiie-ixe siècle), Ašhab b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (m. 204/820) est dépeint dans les sources narratives postérieures au ive/xe siècle comme un savant ayant divergé voire contredit la doctrine du « maître fondateur » Mālik b. Anas (m. 179/795). Cet article interroge l’apparente divergence et indépendance d’Ašhab par l’analyse de sept anecdotes consignées dans la littérature biographique mālikite entre le ive/xe et le vie/xiie siècle. En replaçant ces anecdotes dans leurs contextes politiques, sociaux et doctrinaux de rédaction nous soulignons que : 1. la divergence d’Ašhab est une construction historique qui est 2. le corollaire de l’évolution de la doctrine juridique mālikite entre le iiie/ixe et le vie/xiie siècle. In fine, nous montrons qu’une interconnexion existe entre la tradition biographique construite sur Ašhab et l’évolution du maḏhab (école de doctrinale de droit) mālikite.","PeriodicalId":55965,"journal":{"name":"Islamic Law and Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46499913","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-02DOI: 10.1163/15685195-20230001
Nour-Eddine Qaouar
{"title":"Imām Mālik b. Anas, al-Muwaṭṭa’ [The Recension of Yaḥyā b. Yaḥyā al-Laythī (d. 234/848)]","authors":"Nour-Eddine Qaouar","doi":"10.1163/15685195-20230001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685195-20230001","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":55965,"journal":{"name":"Islamic Law and Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44242822","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-30DOI: 10.1163/15685195-bja10034
Janina M. Safran
This essay traces the incorporation of a sixth/twelfth century fatwā supporting the construction of churches in North Africa in the Mālikī madhhab and provides insight into practices of Mālikī legal interpretation in the Maghrib in the ninth/fifteenth century. In his fatwā, the Cordoban jurist Ibn al-Ḥājj (d. 529/1134) addressed a novel situation involving the relocation of Christians from al-Andalus. This fatwā was selected by the Tunisian jurist al-Burzulī (d. 841/1438) for commentary in his Jāmiʿ masāʾil al-aḥkām. He discussed Ibn al-Ḥājj’s opinions with reference to al-Mudawwana and al-Wāḍiḥa, and later commentaries, and made a connection to church building in Tunis. In the late ninth/fifteenth century, three jurists writing in response to anti-Jewish attacks in Tamanṭīṭ, in the Tuwāt oasis (Algeria), cited Ibn al-Ḥājj’s fatwā, as redacted by al-Burzulī, in their opinions on the destruction of a local synagogue. Each jurist treated Ibn al-Ḥājj’s fatwā as a relevant legal precedent. At the same time, each reevaluated the parameters of Mālikī debate about non-Muslim houses of worship to assert his distinct opinion about the synagogue of Tamanṭīṭ and the position of the Mālikī madhhab on non-Muslim houses of worship in Muslim lands.
{"title":"A House of Worship for Every Religious Community: The History of a Mālikī Fatwā","authors":"Janina M. Safran","doi":"10.1163/15685195-bja10034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685195-bja10034","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This essay traces the incorporation of a sixth/twelfth century fatwā supporting the construction of churches in North Africa in the Mālikī madhhab and provides insight into practices of Mālikī legal interpretation in the Maghrib in the ninth/fifteenth century. In his fatwā, the Cordoban jurist Ibn al-Ḥājj (d. 529/1134) addressed a novel situation involving the relocation of Christians from al-Andalus. This fatwā was selected by the Tunisian jurist al-Burzulī (d. 841/1438) for commentary in his Jāmiʿ masāʾil al-aḥkām. He discussed Ibn al-Ḥājj’s opinions with reference to al-Mudawwana and al-Wāḍiḥa, and later commentaries, and made a connection to church building in Tunis. In the late ninth/fifteenth century, three jurists writing in response to anti-Jewish attacks in Tamanṭīṭ, in the Tuwāt oasis (Algeria), cited Ibn al-Ḥājj’s fatwā, as redacted by al-Burzulī, in their opinions on the destruction of a local synagogue. Each jurist treated Ibn al-Ḥājj’s fatwā as a relevant legal precedent. At the same time, each reevaluated the parameters of Mālikī debate about non-Muslim houses of worship to assert his distinct opinion about the synagogue of Tamanṭīṭ and the position of the Mālikī madhhab on non-Muslim houses of worship in Muslim lands.","PeriodicalId":55965,"journal":{"name":"Islamic Law and Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48400969","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-24DOI: 10.1163/15685195-20220001
P. Bruckmayr
Between the 1870s and 1902, the Jakarta-based Sayyid ʽUthmān b. ʽAbd Allāh al-ʽAlawī wrote two epistles on the correct establishment of the qibla. Questions on the qibla and, controversially, on correcting the faulty direction of prayer in several mosques in Southeast Asia, surfaced in the late 18th century and reappeared periodically until well into the 20th century. Seeking to change the established qibla of a mosque represented not only a strong claim to religious authority, but also a direct assault on the legitimacy of local religious leaders. Thus, Sayyid ʽUthmān’s epistles were aimed not only at cementing his scholarly status, but also at intervening in the social cleavages of the time. This contribution will analyze the author’s two treatises on the qibla and situate them within their scholarly and social context.
{"title":"Facing Mecca from Java: Two Treatises on the Establishment of the qibla, and Their Scholarly and Social Context","authors":"P. Bruckmayr","doi":"10.1163/15685195-20220001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685195-20220001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Between the 1870s and 1902, the Jakarta-based Sayyid ʽUthmān b. ʽAbd Allāh al-ʽAlawī wrote two epistles on the correct establishment of the qibla. Questions on the qibla and, controversially, on correcting the faulty direction of prayer in several mosques in Southeast Asia, surfaced in the late 18th century and reappeared periodically until well into the 20th century. Seeking to change the established qibla of a mosque represented not only a strong claim to religious authority, but also a direct assault on the legitimacy of local religious leaders. Thus, Sayyid ʽUthmān’s epistles were aimed not only at cementing his scholarly status, but also at intervening in the social cleavages of the time. This contribution will analyze the author’s two treatises on the qibla and situate them within their scholarly and social context.","PeriodicalId":55965,"journal":{"name":"Islamic Law and Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49336249","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-24DOI: 10.1163/15685195-bja10036
Eli Alshech
The article explores the ways in which online posting by contemporary Salafi-jihadis in Israel create an enclave mentality that serves to transform Salafi-jihadis into an insular community. Because Salafi-jihadis can no longer by law advocate active jihad on social media in Israel, their posts focus on three Islamic legal themes: The dichotomy between God’s devotees and God’s enemies; the untrustworthiness of Muslim rulers, official Muslim scholars, and “impious” Muslim associations like the Muslim Brothers; and the obligation to apply the doctrine of takfīr against Muslims and deviant Muslim rulers. Although seemingly innocuous, social media posts encourage Salafi-jihadis to take actions that result in their segregation from other Muslims in Israel, particularly Salafi-Taqlidis, and, at the same time, create and maintain a networked community of like-minded individuals willing to implement the Salafi-jihadi creed when the time is ripe.
{"title":"Salafi-Jihadi Online Communication in Israel: Forging a Community Through an “Enclave” Mindset","authors":"Eli Alshech","doi":"10.1163/15685195-bja10036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685195-bja10036","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The article explores the ways in which online posting by contemporary Salafi-jihadis in Israel create an enclave mentality that serves to transform Salafi-jihadis into an insular community. Because Salafi-jihadis can no longer by law advocate active jihad on social media in Israel, their posts focus on three Islamic legal themes: The dichotomy between God’s devotees and God’s enemies; the untrustworthiness of Muslim rulers, official Muslim scholars, and “impious” Muslim associations like the Muslim Brothers; and the obligation to apply the doctrine of takfīr against Muslims and deviant Muslim rulers. Although seemingly innocuous, social media posts encourage Salafi-jihadis to take actions that result in their segregation from other Muslims in Israel, particularly Salafi-Taqlidis, and, at the same time, create and maintain a networked community of like-minded individuals willing to implement the Salafi-jihadi creed when the time is ripe.","PeriodicalId":55965,"journal":{"name":"Islamic Law and Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44267019","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-20DOI: 10.1163/15685195-bja10037
Elizabeth Lhost
{"title":"Moumtaz, Nada. God’s Property: Islam, Charity, and the Modern State","authors":"Elizabeth Lhost","doi":"10.1163/15685195-bja10037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685195-bja10037","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":55965,"journal":{"name":"Islamic Law and Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44068412","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-20DOI: 10.1163/15685195-bja10038
Umar Shareef
This article identifies the seventeenth-century Ottoman legal debate over the permissibility of tobacco as an early instance in which jurists such as Najm al-Dīn al-Ghazzī and Ibrāhīm al-Laqānī, and ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Haṣkafī refer to the ‘ruler’s right to restrict the permissible’ (taqyīd al-mubāḥ) to justify sultan Murād iv’s restriction of smoking. In response, jurists such as ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Nābulsī and ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Ajhūrī contested the application of taqyīd al-mubāḥ to tobacco on the grounds that it did not satisfy the required condition of securing public well-being (maṣlaḥa). My findings show that the jurists agreed on the administrative privilege of the ruler to restrict the permissible but disagreed over whether the ban against tobacco was based on maṣlaḥa or if an accidental property could temporarily prohibit the performance of a permissible act. This paper sheds light on the diversity of juristic positions with regard to the valid exercise of political power, the scope of the ruler’s legal jurisdiction, and the relationship between political and religious authorities.
{"title":"Taqyīd al-Mubāḥ and Tobacco: Between Administrative and Legislative Authority","authors":"Umar Shareef","doi":"10.1163/15685195-bja10038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685195-bja10038","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This article identifies the seventeenth-century Ottoman legal debate over the permissibility of tobacco as an early instance in which jurists such as Najm al-Dīn al-Ghazzī and Ibrāhīm al-Laqānī, and ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Haṣkafī refer to the ‘ruler’s right to restrict the permissible’ (taqyīd al-mubāḥ) to justify sultan Murād iv’s restriction of smoking. In response, jurists such as ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Nābulsī and ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Ajhūrī contested the application of taqyīd al-mubāḥ to tobacco on the grounds that it did not satisfy the required condition of securing public well-being (maṣlaḥa). My findings show that the jurists agreed on the administrative privilege of the ruler to restrict the permissible but disagreed over whether the ban against tobacco was based on maṣlaḥa or if an accidental property could temporarily prohibit the performance of a permissible act. This paper sheds light on the diversity of juristic positions with regard to the valid exercise of political power, the scope of the ruler’s legal jurisdiction, and the relationship between political and religious authorities.","PeriodicalId":55965,"journal":{"name":"Islamic Law and Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49385793","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-26DOI: 10.1163/15685195-bja10033
Julie Lowe
Academic articles on Islamic law and intellectual property often mention that the Ḥanafī legal tradition is the only school that does not protect intellectual property. By examining Ḥanafī legal manuals and fatwās by contemporary Ḥanafī jurists, I argue that variant interpretations of Ḥanafī doctrine can result in a finding of compatibility or incompatibility between Ḥanafī law and copyright. Interpretations that recognize copyright protect Ḥanafīs from tension between state laws on intellectual property and religious practice. Whereas some Ḥanafī jurists hold that Ḥanafī law is fully compatible with copyright, others place restrictions on copyright or reject copyright entirely. Ḥanafī legal manuals grant some protection to intangible notions such as honour, confidentiality and sanctity. One interpretation of property rules accommodates intellectual property rights. The principles of public interest (ḥuqūq Allāh) and private rights (ḥuqūq al-ʿibād) may provide jurists who accept intellectual property with a means to better theorize aspects of copyright.
{"title":"Ḥanafī Approaches to Copyright","authors":"Julie Lowe","doi":"10.1163/15685195-bja10033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685195-bja10033","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Academic articles on Islamic law and intellectual property often mention that the Ḥanafī legal tradition is the only school that does not protect intellectual property. By examining Ḥanafī legal manuals and fatwās by contemporary Ḥanafī jurists, I argue that variant interpretations of Ḥanafī doctrine can result in a finding of compatibility or incompatibility between Ḥanafī law and copyright. Interpretations that recognize copyright protect Ḥanafīs from tension between state laws on intellectual property and religious practice. Whereas some Ḥanafī jurists hold that Ḥanafī law is fully compatible with copyright, others place restrictions on copyright or reject copyright entirely. Ḥanafī legal manuals grant some protection to intangible notions such as honour, confidentiality and sanctity. One interpretation of property rules accommodates intellectual property rights. The principles of public interest (ḥuqūq Allāh) and private rights (ḥuqūq al-ʿibād) may provide jurists who accept intellectual property with a means to better theorize aspects of copyright.","PeriodicalId":55965,"journal":{"name":"Islamic Law and Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45644285","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","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：