Abstract
The transformative and regulatory accommodation model addresses practical challenges to accommodate religious laws and courts in the secular and democratic regimes. There is a strong evidence against the jurisdictional competition between secular and religious courts under defined conditions. There is no concern regarding the Shariah courts in the non-Muslim democracies, as majority of the country’s ethno-religious groups control the civil and rabbinical courts. In this regard, there is a need to mitigate the negative impact of Muslim Family Laws (MFLs) by the civil courts in non-Muslim majority countries because MFLs imply certain disabilities and limitations upon the displayed rights of women and children. To address these issues, the present study aims to discuss the possibilities and challenges faced by the multicultural and pluri-legal accommodations by focusing on the Islamic law and institutions within the non-Muslim democracies. The results have shown that the reformation of rules and procedures internalize certain principles and discourses due to increased compliance of religious courts with the high court rulings. Increase in the number of Muslim judges on civil courts would help to overcome lack of legitimacy in the perspectives of the Muslim minority that is the main reason of shortcomings of both ex post and ex ante oversight mechanisms.
Highlights
Multicultural accommodations confer upon positive rights of minimal groups for protecting their different religion-legal traditions when the rights of individuals are associated with the well-intended group throughout the communities
Self-reforms are undertaken as a result of influence of the civil courts that pressurize the religious courts and judges indirectly
Sharia courts further based their operation under lateral burden from civil family courts to top-down pressure of HCJ
Summary
Multicultural accommodations confer upon positive rights of minimal groups for protecting their different religion-legal traditions when the rights of individuals are associated with the well-intended group throughout the communities. The significance of the internal autonomy of non-ruling minority groups is emphasized for making recommendations for justifying severe physical violence through state intervention communal affairs. These contributions are removed or are largely abstract from the challenges of accommodating religious laws and practices throughout a democratic framework. The significance of the internal autonomy of non-ruling minority groups was emphasized by Barzilai (2010), who suggested that there are only rare instances of severe physical violence justifying the state intervention in communal affairs. The present study significantly contributes to explaining the possibilities and challenges faced by the multicultural and pluri-legal accommodations This is accomplished by studying the non-Muslim democracies and the present Islamic law and institutions within it. Lessons learned from the cases have been discussed for future implications
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
