Legal Pluralism and the <i>Shari'a</i>: A Comparison of Greece and Turkey

Turner, Bryan S.; Arslan, Berna

doi:10.1111/1467-954x.12117

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…From theoretical perspectives, conservative rulings are observed for Greek civil courts concerning muftis and Islamic law. The muftis' legal independence was developed and confirmed by international treaties as an important protection element for the reciprocal minority between Greece and Turkey (Turner & Arslan, 2015). Questions related to Islamic law was not only based on legality, but also on diplomatic, security, and political concerns.…”

Section: Jurisdictional Competition and Internal Reformmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Non-Muslim Courts Bring Legal Change in Sharia Laws?

Alotaibi¹

2019

JPL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Jurisdictional Competition and Internal Reformmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Non-Muslim Courts Bring Legal Change in Sharia Laws?

Alotaibi¹

2019

JPL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Even though Islamic law is not part of the legal system in Turkey, as result of the adoption of a secular constitution and the outlawing of shari'a law, there has recently been a growing and mostly informal interest in implementing some aspects of Shari'a , particularly after AKP came to power (Turner and Arslan ). This has caused increasing tensions among those state actors who see the protection of the secular state apparatus as their primary goal and the religious conservative groups who want to introduce religious doctrines into official law.…”

Section: Legitimacy Amnesty Politics and Akp's New Populismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neoliberal Penality and State Legitimacy: Politics of Amnesty in Turkey during the AKP Period

Yıldırım¹,

Kuyucu²

2017

Law Soc Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

General amnesty is an extraordinary policy mostly used in the aftermath of civil wars or regime transition to maintain political stability. In Turkey, however, amnesties have historically been used to resolve the chronic problems of the criminal justice system. This radically changed after the Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power in 2002, which has taken a sharp anti‐amnesty position. This shift should be understood as part of AKP's neoliberal orientation in criminal justice policies that has increased the dose of punitiveness, emphasized individual responsibility of offenders, and enhanced the organizational efficiency of institutions. Central to this neoliberal penal orientation is the party's neopopulist ideology constructed on an image of a strong state that (i) is capable of dealing with structural problems without having to recourse to extraordinary measures, (ii) no longer sees criminals as “victims of fate”, (iii) prioritizes victims’ rights. Our analysis contributes to the mounting literature on neoliberal penalty in two ways: first is by bringing the question of why states forgive at center stage when most work focuses exclusively on how and why states punish; second is by paying closer attention to how developing country governments with limited financial, logistical, and administrative resources manage the tensions and contradictions that neoliberal penal policies bring forth. Our arguments are based on official reports; in‐depth interviews with legal professionals; and descriptive statistics on the criminal justice system.

show abstract

Sharia and Young Muslims in the Anglosphere

Yılmaz

2023

Islam in the Anglosphere

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Legal Pluralism and the Shari'a: A Comparison of Greece and Turkey

Cited by 4 publications

References 20 publications

Can Non-Muslim Courts Bring Legal Change in Sharia Laws?

Can Non-Muslim Courts Bring Legal Change in Sharia Laws?

Neoliberal Penality and State Legitimacy: Politics of Amnesty in Turkey during the AKP Period

Sharia and Young Muslims in the Anglosphere

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About