“Comparing” Jewish and Islamic Legal Traditions: Between Disciplinarity and Critical Historical Jurisprudence

Abstract

Common modes of comparing Jewish and Islamic legal traditions are limited by deep structural assumptions that may be traced to three comparative disciplines that emerged in post-Enlightenment Europe. Comparative philology, comparative religion, and comparative law emphasized linearity and genealogy, with prejudicial and essentializing implications. This article examines how certain disciplinary methods continue to shape the underlying conceptual assumptions of Judeo-Islamic studies through a case study on circumcision, a practice shared by Jews and Muslims. When late antique circumcision is situated within its socio-political, geographic, and intellectual contexts and when it is defined in relation to its correlative terms and concepts, it becomes clear that Jews and Muslims understood and practiced circumcision in distinct ways. These heuristics of critical historical jurisprudence clarify the non-linear and overlapping relationship between Jewish and Islamic legal traditions. The implication of critical historical jurisprudence for contemporary controversies surrounding circumcision is recognizing the inadequacy and limiting consequences of modern categories and concepts.