Political liberalism, islamic family law and family law pluralism: Lessons from new York on family law arbitration
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Recent controversies involving Islamic family law in the context of liberal jurisdictions (as exemplified in the Shari’a arbitration controversy of Ontario, Canada) have raised fundamental questions regarding the nature of family law in a liberal jurisdiction and the place of Islamic religious and legal commitments in such a jurisdiction. In this chapter, which is part of a book dedicated to discussing the question of family law pluralism in liberal states, the author argues that orthodox Muslims would prefer a policy of family law pluralism that is derived from a liberal family law rather than a system of family law pluralism that would give religious bodies greater authority. Working with a Rawlsian conception of the role of the family within political liberalism, the author argues that orthodox Muslims could support this version of family law because it creates a space for private ordering within the family that is sufficient for robust manifestations of Islamic family life that are also consistent with liberalism, and most importantly, does not require Muslims to endorse what would be, from their perspective, metaphysically controversial conceptions of marriage, such as the norm of lifelong marriage. The chapter describes how various Islamic ethical and legal doctrines give rise to and support a system of family law pluralism which, although different from the pluralism of liberalism, creates the possibility for overlap between authentically Islamic doctrines and liberal ones. The author then offers examples of the salient historical differences in Muslim understandings of family law by comparing two distinct Sunni Muslim systems of substantive law: the Hanafî and the Mâlikî. The author also describes the tension that exists between the values of Islamic law as a legal system and traditionalist Islamic religious discourse: the former protects and vindicates the individual rights of the parties to the marriage contract while the latter promotes an ethic of sacrifice, trust, love and female subordination to their husbands. The pluralist conception of marriage in Islam, whether at the legal or moral level, means as a practical matter that not all Islamic conceptions are consistent with a liberal order, and accordingly, any kind of Islamic arbitration system must be subject to the supervision of the liberal legal order to confirm that results of arbitration do not violate mandatory provisions of family law. Finally, the author offers the practical example of New York courts’ experience with enforcing (or not) family law arbitrations conducted pursuant to Jewish law to demonstrate the capacity of the courts in a liberal jurisdiction to give effect to the autonomy of nonliberal citizens while ensuring that the autonomy of the family is not used to deprive any of its members of their fundamental rights as citizens.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
David M. Adams (2002). Book Review: Janet L. Dolgin. Families: Law, Gender and Difference and Defining the Family: Law, Technology, and Reproduction in an Uneasy Age. By New York: New York University Press, 1997. And David M. Estlund and Martha C. Nussbaum. Sex, Preference, and Family: Essays in Law and Nature. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. [REVIEW] Hypatia 17 (3):254-256.
G. E. M. de Ste Croix (1970). Athenian Family Law A. R. W. Harrison: The Law of Athens: The Family and Property. Pp. Xx + 346. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. Cloth, 63s. Net. [REVIEW] The Classical Review 20 (03):387-390.
A. Kevin Reinhart (1983). Islamic Law as Islamic Ethics. Journal of Religious Ethics 11 (2):186 - 203.
Alireza Bagheri (2003). Criticism of "Brain Death" Policy in Japan. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13 (4):359-372.
Anne Alstott, Is the Family at Odds with Equality? The Legal Implications of the Egalitarian Family.
D. L. (1998). What is Legal Intervention in the Family? Family Law and Family Privacy. Law and Philosophy 17 (2):141-158.
Laurence D. Houlgate (1998). What is Legal Intervention in the Family? Family Law and Family Privacy. Law and Philosophy 17 (2):141 - 158.
Martha Minow & Mary Lyndon Shanley (1996). Relational Rights and Responsibilities: Revisioning the Family in Liberal Political Theory and Law. Hypatia 11 (1):4 - 29.
Added to index2009-06-23
Total downloads4 ( #254,284 of 1,100,864 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #289,727 of 1,100,864 )
How can I increase my downloads?