血钱之争:当代法律话语与妇女权利

IF 0.3 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Hawwa Pub Date : 2019-05-14 DOI:10.1163/15692086-12341351
Ron Shaham
{"title":"血钱之争:当代法律话语与妇女权利","authors":"Ron Shaham","doi":"10.1163/15692086-12341351","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThe present study focuses on a fatwa issued in 2005 by Yūsuf al-Qaraḍāwī. Unlike the predominant opinion of all law schools that the female’s diya is half that of a male’s, al-Qaraḍāwī argues that it is equal to that of a male’s. I claim that the encounter between the Modern-Salafi juristic methodology, applied by al-Qaraḍāwī, and the Traditional-Salafi methodology, applied by those who opposed his fatwa, captures in a nutshell the main features of current juristic debates in general, and debates on the legal status of women in particular. Although the strict methodology of Traditional-Salafis does not hold substantive potential for change, Modern-Salafis are able to undermine the orthodox positions by exploiting the lack of agreement on the authoritative reports and the ambiguous definitions of consensus, to form legal opinions that enhance women’s status.","PeriodicalId":42389,"journal":{"name":"Hawwa","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15692086-12341351","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Debates on the Diya (Blood Money): Contemporary Juristic Discourse and Women’s Rights\",\"authors\":\"Ron Shaham\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15692086-12341351\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThe present study focuses on a fatwa issued in 2005 by Yūsuf al-Qaraḍāwī. Unlike the predominant opinion of all law schools that the female’s diya is half that of a male’s, al-Qaraḍāwī argues that it is equal to that of a male’s. I claim that the encounter between the Modern-Salafi juristic methodology, applied by al-Qaraḍāwī, and the Traditional-Salafi methodology, applied by those who opposed his fatwa, captures in a nutshell the main features of current juristic debates in general, and debates on the legal status of women in particular. Although the strict methodology of Traditional-Salafis does not hold substantive potential for change, Modern-Salafis are able to undermine the orthodox positions by exploiting the lack of agreement on the authoritative reports and the ambiguous definitions of consensus, to form legal opinions that enhance women’s status.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42389,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hawwa\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15692086-12341351\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hawwa\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15692086-12341351\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hawwa","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15692086-12341351","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的重点是Yūsuf al-Qaraḍāwī于2005年发布的一项教令。不同于所有法学院的主流观点,即女性的diya是男性的一半,al-Qaraḍāwī认为女性的diya与男性的diya相等。我认为,al-Qaraḍāwī所采用的现代萨拉菲法学方法论与那些反对他的法特瓦的人所采用的传统萨拉菲法学方法论之间的相遇,概括地抓住了当前法学辩论的主要特点,特别是关于妇女法律地位的辩论。尽管传统萨拉菲派严格的方法论并不具有实质性的改变潜力,但现代萨拉菲派能够利用权威报告缺乏共识和共识定义的模糊来破坏正统地位,形成提高妇女地位的法律意见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Debates on the Diya (Blood Money): Contemporary Juristic Discourse and Women’s Rights
The present study focuses on a fatwa issued in 2005 by Yūsuf al-Qaraḍāwī. Unlike the predominant opinion of all law schools that the female’s diya is half that of a male’s, al-Qaraḍāwī argues that it is equal to that of a male’s. I claim that the encounter between the Modern-Salafi juristic methodology, applied by al-Qaraḍāwī, and the Traditional-Salafi methodology, applied by those who opposed his fatwa, captures in a nutshell the main features of current juristic debates in general, and debates on the legal status of women in particular. Although the strict methodology of Traditional-Salafis does not hold substantive potential for change, Modern-Salafis are able to undermine the orthodox positions by exploiting the lack of agreement on the authoritative reports and the ambiguous definitions of consensus, to form legal opinions that enhance women’s status.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Hawwa
Hawwa HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
期刊介绍: Hawwa publishes articles from all disciplinary and comparative perspectives that concern women and gender issues in the Middle East and the Islamic world. These include Muslim and non-Muslim communities within the greater Middle East, and Muslim and Middle-Eastern communities elsewhere in the world. Articles dealing with men, masculinity, children and the family, or other issues of gender shall also be considered. The journal strives to include significant studies of theory and methodology as well as topical matter. Approximately one third of the submissions focus on the pre-modern era, with the majority of articles on the contemporary age. The journal features several full-length articles and current book reviews.
期刊最新文献
The Ideal Beloved in the Poems of Kurdish Poets of Īlam Consumption as a Demarcation of Social and Economic Status: The Case of Beyhan Sultan Colonialism and Islamic Reform: Bodies, Minds and Freedom The Consensual Divorce (ṭalāq) in Palestine Women and Law in Seventeenth-Century Mughal India
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1