- In “Liberalism Versus Liberalism: An Analysis of Muslim-American Amicus Curiae Arguments Concerning Complicity-Based Conscience Claims” (Journal of Law and Religion 38, no. 2 (2023) (forthcoming)), Kamran Bajwa (Chicago Law School) and Samuel E. Miller (University of Iowa – College of Law; University of Chicago), reviewing amicus curiae briefs filed in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado (2018), Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021), observe that claims have been made in these briefs concerning the harm done to third party religious groups by seemingly neutral laws of general applicability.
- In “Protection of persons with disabilities in armed conflict under international humanitarian law and Islamic law” (International Review of the Red Cross 105, no. 922 (2023)), Ahmed Al-Dawoody (International Committee of the Red Cross) and William I. Pons (University of Geneva) argue that “the protection of persons with disabilities in armed conflict, and specifically within Muslim contexts, will be enhanced through the inclusion and consideration of Islamic law.”
- In “Hadhonah Rights of Children (Not Mumayyis) Based on Compilation of Islamic Law and Child Protection Act” (Nusantra: Journal of Law Studies 2, no. 1 (2023)), Muhammad Fitri Adi (STAI Jam’iyah Mahmudiyah, Indonesia) considers the protections afforded to certain children based on Indonesia’s legal framework incorporating Islamic law.
- In “Islam’s Future in Kathmandu” (Commonweal, March 27, 2023), Thomas Albert Howard (Valparaiso University) describes “The Madrasa Discourses project, launched in 2015, [which] operates with the working assumption that today’s South Asian madrasa education has become too static, indifferent to history and basic scientific literacy.”