Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Sociology of Shari’a: Case Studies from around the World pp 291–303Cite as

Shari’a and Multiple Modernities in Western Countries: Toward a Multi-faith Pragmatic Modern Approach Rather Than a Legal Pluralist One?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Boundaries of Religious Freedom: Regulating Religion in Diverse Societies ((BOREFRRERE,volume 1))

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to situate the debate on legal pluralism and Shari’a within Eisenstadt’s multiple modernity thesis, and to argue that, to move the matter further, we should work towards a new multi-faith pragmatic modern project. This, as is discussed, fits with Habermas’ post-secular project. This multiple modernities theory is tested on the Australian case and it is discovered that while the theory applies to Shari’a and finances, with regard to other personal laws, we are confronted instead with a new conservative modernity. The chapter concludes by proposing that this theory offers a third way between legal pluralism and ‘universal’ legalism.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Other researchers, such as Wohlrab-Sahr and Burchardt (2012), have extended this notion of multiple modernities to include that of multiple secularities, creating four ideal-types of secularity. Unfortunately, further exploration of these types is beyond the scope of this chapter.

  2. 2.

    What is meant here by ‘secularism’ is close to what Suleiman (2012) refers to as ‘procedural secularism.’ This is a type of secularism which protects the rights of citizens to practise their religion and to engage in public debates on religious matters. This is opposed to ‘ideological secularism’ which aims at excluding or controlling religious voices in the public sphere.

  3. 3.

    However, one must also take into account that, as illustrated by the UK case (Douglas et al. 2011), as there is no ‘hierarchy’ of tribunals within the Muslim community, litigants can, to some extent, choose which tribunal they go to. This is called ‘forum shopping.’

  4. 4.

    On the other hand, Krayem (2010), from her sample of 22 Australian Muslims, claims that the women she interviewed felt they have a choice as to whether or not to participate in the process.

  5. 5.

    On the other hand, and in the UK context, Bano (2008) is cautious of the assertion that formalisation will lead to more justice and greater accountability.

  6. 6.

    This proposal is also in line with Brechin’s (2013) recent call for more regulation of the arbitration of these Shari’a courts.

References

  • Akbarzadech, S., & Roose, J. (2011). Muslims, multiculturalism and the question of the silent majority. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 31(3), 309–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alwani, Z., & Lizzio, C. (2013). Religion, gender, and family law: Critical perspectives on integration for European Muslims. In M. Berger (Ed.), Applying Sharia in the West: Facts, fears and figures of Islamic rules on family relations in the West (pp. 227–240). Leiden: Leiden University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bano, S. (2008). In pursuit of religious and legal diversity: A response to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the ‘Sharia debate’ in Britain. Ecclesiastical Law Journal, 10, 283–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbalet, J., Possamai, A., & Turner, B. (Eds.). (2011). Religion and the state: A comparative sociology. New York: Anthem Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P. G., Davie, G., & Fokas, E. (2008). Religious America, secular Europe? A theme and variations. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, A. (2010). Legal recognition of Sharia law: Is this the right direction for Australian family matters? Family Matters, 84, 64–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, A., & Sadiq, K. (2011). Good and bad Sharia: Australia’s mixed response to Islamic law. UNSW Law Journal, 34(2), 383–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brechin, J. (2013). A study of the use of Sharia law in religious arbitration in the United Kingdom and the concerns that this raises for human rights. Ecclesiastical Law Journal, 15(3), 293–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. (2010). Constructions of Islam in the context of religious arbitration: A consideration of the ‘Shari’ah debate’ in Ontario, Canada. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 30(3), 343–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casanova, J. (2006). Rethinking secularization: A global comparative perspective. The Hedgehog Review, 8(1/2), 7–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davie, G. (2002). Europe: The exceptional case: Parameters of faith in the modern world. London: Darton, Longman and Todd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davie, G. (2006). Is Europe an exceptional case? The Hedgehog Review, 8(1/2), 23–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davie, G. (2013). The sociology of religion. A critical agenda. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, M. (2010). 2009 Association for the Sociology of Religion Presidential Address: Can post-secular society tolerate religious differences? Sociology of Religion, 71(2), 139–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, G., Doe, N., Gilliat-Ray, S., Sandberg, R., & Khan, A. (2011). Social cohesion and civil law: Marriage, divorce and religious courts. Cardiff Law School, Cardiff University. http://www.law.cf.ac.uk/clr/research/cohesion

  • Gilliat-Ray, S. (2000). Religion in higher education. The politics of the multi-faith campus. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenstadt, S. N. (2000). Multiple modernities. Daedalus, 129(1), 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fourie, E. (2012). A future for the theory of multiple modernities: Insights from the new modernization theory. Social Science Information, 51(1), 52–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fozdar, F. (2011). The ‘choirboy’ and the ‘mad monk’: Christianity, Islam, Australia’s political landscape and prospects for multiculturalism. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 32(6), 621–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Göle, N. (2002). Islam in public: New visibilities and new imaginaries. Public Culture, 14(1), 173–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (2006). Religion in the public sphere. European Journal of Philosophy, 14(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hussain, J. (2013). Family dispute resolution and Muslim communities in Australia. In H. McCue & A. Saeed (Eds.), Family law and Australian Muslim women (pp. 95–124). Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hussain, J., & Possamai, A. (2013). A down under approach and reaction to Shari’a: An impasse towards post-secularism? In M. Berger (Ed.), Applying Sharia in the West: Facts, fears and figures of Islamic rules on family relations in the West (pp. 65–78). Leiden: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Council on Human Rights Policy. (2009). When legal worlds overlap: Human rights, state and non-state law. Versoix, Switzerland: International Council on Human Rights Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakubowicz, A. (2003). Hard shell and soft centre: Australia as a truly modern nation. International Journal of Diversity in Organisations, Communities and Nations, 3, 337–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung, D. (2011). Orientalists, Islamists and the global public sphere: A genealogy of the modern essentialist image of Islam. Sheffield: Equinox.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamali, M. (2012). Multiple modernities and mass communications in Muslim countries. Global Media and Communication, 8(3), 243–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korteweg, A. (2008). The Sharia debate in Ontario: Gender, Islam, and representations of Muslim women’s agency. Gender and Society, 22(2), 434–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krayem, G. (2010, January). Freedom of religion, belief and gender: A Muslim perspective. Supplementary Paper for the Australian Human Rights Commission Project: Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st century. http://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/frb/papers/Gender.pdf

  • Lee, R. (2006). Reinveinting modernity: Reflexive modernization vs liquid modernity vs multiple modernities. European Journal of Social Theory, 9(3), 355–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macfarlane, J. (2012). Shari’a law: Coming to a courthouse near you? What Shari’a really means to American Muslims. Report to the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcotte, R. (2003). How far have reforms gone in Islam? Women’s Studies International Forum, 26(2), 153–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, D. (2005). On secularization: Towards a revised general theory. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masud, M. (2012). Définir la normativité de la charia au Pakistan. In B. Dupret (Ed.), La charia aujourd’hui: Usages de la référence au droit islamique (pp. 185–197). Paris: La Découverte.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parashar, A. (2012). Australian Muslims and family law: Diversity and gender justice. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 33(5), 565–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pew Research Center. (2013). The world’s Muslims: Religion, politics and society. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center on Religion and Public Life.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pilgram, L. (2012). British-Muslim family law and citizenship. Citizenship, 16(5/6), 769–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Possamai, A. (2008). Australia’s ‘shy’ de-secularisation process. In A. Imtoual & B. Spaler (Eds.), Religion, spirituality and social science (pp. 23–35). Bristol: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Possamai, A. (2009). Sociology of religion for generations X and Y. London: Equinox.

    Google Scholar 

  • Possamai, A., Turner, B., Roose, J., Dagistanli, S., & Voyce, M. (2013). Defining the conversation about Shari’a: Representations in Australian newspapers. Current Sociology, 6(5–6), 626–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J. (2013). Managing minority religious and ethnic groups in Australia: Implications for social cohesion. Social Compass, 60(4), 579–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J., & Springer, V. (2013). Legal pluralism and Shari’a in western societies: Theories and hypotheses. In L. Beaman & W. Sullivan (Eds.), Varieties of religious establishments (pp. 201–218). Burlington: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohe, M. (2013). Reasons for the application of Shari’a in the West. In M. Berger (Ed.), Applying Sharia in the West: Facts, fears and figures of Islamic rules on family relations in the West (pp. 25–46). Leiden: Leiden University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosati, M., & Stoeckl, K. (Eds.). (2012). Multiple modernities and postsecular societies. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saeed, A. (2010). Reflections on the establishment of Shari’a courts in Australia. In R. Ahdar & N. Aroney (Eds.), Sharia in the West (pp. 223–238). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, V. (2007). One world, one modernity. In V. H. Schmidt (Ed.), Modernity at the beginning of the 21st century (pp. 205–228). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suleiman, Y. (2012). Contextualising Islam in Britain II. Cambridge: Centre of Islamic Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tibi, B. (2000). Secularization and de-secularization in modern Islam. Journal for the Study of Beliefs and Worldviews, 1(1), 95–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, B. (2007). The enclave society: Towards a sociology of immobility. European Journal of Social Theory, 10(2), 287–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Aelst, P., & Walgrave, S. (2011). Minimal or massive? The political agenda-setting power of the mass media according to different methods. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16(3), 295–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yilmaz, I. (2002). The challenge of post-modern legality and Muslim legal pluralism in England. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 28(2), 343–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wohlrab-Sahr, M., & Burchardt, M. (2012). Multiple secularities: Toward a cultural sociology of secular modernities. Comparative Sociology, 11, 875–909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Religion and Society Research Centre, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Adam Possamai

Authors
  1. Adam Possamai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam Possamai .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Religion and Society Research Centre, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    Adam Possamai

  2. Grant Sawyer Center for Justice Studies, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, USA

    James T Richardson

  3. City University of New York The Graduate Center, New York, New York, USA

    Bryan S. Turner

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Possamai, A. (2015). Shari’a and Multiple Modernities in Western Countries: Toward a Multi-faith Pragmatic Modern Approach Rather Than a Legal Pluralist One?. In: Possamai, A., Richardson, J., Turner, B. (eds) The Sociology of Shari’a: Case Studies from around the World. Boundaries of Religious Freedom: Regulating Religion in Diverse Societies, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09605-6_17

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation