Religious Courts and Rights in Plural Societies: Interlegal Gaps and the Need for Complex Concurrency

The administration or recognition of religious courts is a form of religious accommodation present in many constitutional states today commonly analysed in legal pluralism terms. This article contributes to the further analysis of the relationship between legal pluralism and rights in religiously diverse societies by examining the status of state religious courts and their interaction with state non-religious (secular) courts. In particular, I examine what Cover calls “jurisdictional redundancies” between the courts and conceptualize the allocation of power between religious and non-religious courts as a potentially productive site of interlegality. In doing so, I support concurrent jurisdictional allocations, arguing that exclusive jurisdiction could result in what I call an interlegal gap, whereby instead of inter-penetration of norms and production of reconciliatory principles, there is a justice gap whereby litigants may find themselves unable to obtain appropriate legal recourse including when neither court is willing to assume jurisdiction over the matter. This requires us to see the relationship between religious courts and non-religious courts through the more mundane but more practical lens of jurisdictional overlaps and competition, rather than through the more abstract framing of normative or even civilizational clashes. Accordingly, I argue that concurrent jurisdiction and interlegality have greater potential to strike a balance between individual and group rights and could be more protective of religious diversity. In other words, I argue for a closer, rather than a more separate, relationship between religious and non-religious courts, while denying that a hierarchical relationship where religious courts are subordinated to non-religious courts is the only way to protect rights.

Integrity and rights to gender-affirming healthcare

Gender-affirming healthcare (GAH) interventions are medical or surgical interventions that aim to allow trans and non-binary people to better affirm their gender identity. It has been argued that rights to GAH must be grounded in either a right to be cured of or mitigate an illness—gender dysphoria—or in harm prevention, given the high rates of depression and suicide among trans and non-binary people. However, these grounds of a right to GAH conflict with the prevalent view among theorists, institutions and activists that trans and non-binary people do not have a mental illness and that one can be trans and entitled to GAH without being depressed or suicidal. This paper challenges the orthodoxy that a right to GAH must be grounded in either of these ways and instead argues for a right to GAH grounded in a right to live and act with integrity. The standard view, which this paper explains, is that our rights to live and act with integrity ground a right to religious accommodation in many cases such as a right to not be denied social security due to one’s refusal to work a job on a holy day. This paper argues that if our rights to live and act with integrity can ground prima facie rights to religious accommodation, our rights to live and act with integrity ground prima facie rights to GAH.

Patterns of Peaceful Cooperation in Medieval Muslim Medina and Its Relevance to the Present

The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) managed to reconcile multi-tribal, multi-religious society of Medina by treating people with dignity and honour. He created a society without racism and racial superiority; it brought various faiths and flavors together and helped to remove barriers of tribal biases. The Prophet used nonviolent methods to resist those who persecuted him and considered peacemaking to be more effective than aggression and violence. Despite some clashes that took place between Muslims and Jews during domestic security arrangements in Medina, the Prophet (PBUH) welcomed the increasing racial and ethnic diversity and engaged in linguistic and cultural interactions. People of all colors felt safer under Muslim rule because there was no racism against blacks and no concept of white and Arab supremacy, Islamic philosophy has only two categories of human beings (believers and unbelievers). Dialogue begins when people meet each other and depends upon mutual understanding that is why the Prophet (PBUH) had frequent social interactions with people of different backgrounds and to improve the quality of relationships within local community, the Prophet (PBUH) explored different tools. This paper discusses the Prophet's (PBUH) attitude towards other communities and the nature of religious accommodation and coexistence.

The Value of Sacred Places

This article explores the neglected topic of the value of sacred places of various religions. The great value that adherents of these religions ascribe to these places cannot account for their public political value, given that the duty to treat such places with respect falls on all citizens, whatever their faith. The article considers and rejects three views regarding the value of sacred places: that they are protected by cultural rights, that damaging them would hurt the feelings of religious believers, and that they are the collective property of religious groups. It then considers the right to religious liberty, which has been argued in recent scholarship on religious accommodation to be best defended through the value of integrity and by honoring one’s religious commitments. Although integrity is too individualistic a concept to explain the value of sacred places directly, the way in which these places embody sacredness here on earth helps enable integrity by showing what one’s commitments are invested in. This view of the value of sacred places can account for the value of non-religious sacred places and for the duty to respect them all.

Governing Diversity: Reflections on the Doctrine and Tradition of Religious Accommodation in Islam

The problématique of governing diversity has attracted a great deal of scholarly attention but literature has largely overlooked the challenges appertaining to growing religious diversity in many places. The contemporary power sharing models and multicultural policies which are of a secular nature fall short of the expectations to foster peaceful coexistence in multi-religious societies. The primary concern of this paper is to manifest how religion can help us to lessen faith based violence. It is argued that religious traditions may offer valuable insights to design more inclusive governance. In this backdrop, the current paper evaluates the Islamic values of religious accommodation to gauge how helpful they are for designing inclusive policies in religiously diverse societies. The analysis illustrates that Islamic doctrine contemplates the politics of accommodation and forbearance. The pluralistic approach of Islam offered religious autonomy to non-Muslims in the state of Madinah. The ‘millet system’ established by the Ottoman Empire is widely admired for granting non-territorial autonomy in the matters related to religion, culture, and personal laws to non-Muslims. This display of an Islamic pluralistic approach at different junctures of Muslim history attests the capacity of the Islamic values of accommodation to nurture peaceful coexistence in modern societies. However, it requires a more unbiased and rigorous analysis to convince the global audience in this regard.