I am drawn to big projects. Small projects are easier to manage: if I focus on a single well–defined question, and answer it using a narrowly circumscribed set of source material, I can go from idea to article in less than a year, before my thoughts and notes and sources become too unwieldy to handle … Continue reading Getting a handle on large research projects
There are plenty of reasons to say that it is. The corpus of revealed prooftexts is closely guarded and ranked by the decisions of hadith critics of old. The meaning of each word is governed by prescribed literal interpretations that must be followed in the absence of contrary evidence. When prooftexts conflict, abrogation settles the … Continue reading Is Islamic Legal Theory Conservative?
The academic study of Islamic legal theory in the English–speaking world has been marked by several landmark gatherings: in Princeton (1983), Alta, Utah (1999), and Istanbul (2016 and now October 2019). The latest, held October 15–17 at Istanbul University, for the first time gave equal attention to the formative, classical, postclassical, and modern periods of … Continue reading Istanbul conference brings postclassical uṣūl al-fiqh into the limelight
It is time to bid farewell to our guest blogger for the month of October. Please join me in thanking Ahmad A. Ahmad for his thoughtful series of posts this month comparing and reflecting about Islamic and Roman law. In case you missed any of them, here they are compiled: Let's Lose Lawyers (1-4) Let's … Continue reading Thank you, Ahmad A. Ahmad!
Two points remain to be made at the end of this series, arising from a reaction to, and an interaction of relevance to, the previous blog posts. First, an excellent graduate student at Istanbul Şehir University (Ali Rıza Işın), who is as far as one gets from being a naïve individual, decided to feign naiveté and … Continue reading Commentary :: Let’s Lose Lawyers – Afterthoughts
A minimally professionalized lawyer-advocate is less of an independent agent with interests diverging from those of their appointers. This, in a nutshell, is the image I depicted in three previous posts. If each member of society contemplates needing to defend themselves and their associates in court, they would think differently of rights, laws, and justice. … Continue reading Commentary :: Let’s Lose Lawyers (4-4)
In both Roman and Islamic law, legal representation is not limited to court appearances on behalf of a principal. It is more or less the default in everyday life that men and women (and even children), educated and uneducated, rich and poor—all need to be represented by others, and that need is presumed to arise … Continue reading Commentary :: Let’s Lose Lawyers (3-4)
At the end of the last post we met the negotiorum gestor, an administrator of the business of another, even without any mandate from the principal. The argument for this and for the more recognizable representative, who receives an explicit appointment by the principal, we learn (from Ulpian), was made from “necessity.” In the Digest, … Continue reading Commentary :: Let’s Lose Lawyers (2-4)
INTRODUCTION TO A SERIES OF FOUR POSTS In this series, I aim to play with a few ideas. First, I will imagine a society without heavily professionalized sophists who can argue either side in a legal dispute, i.e., lawyer-advocates (posts 1-2). The historical models I employ (Roman and Islamic law) allow me to underscore the … Continue reading Commentary :: Let’s Lose Lawyers (1-4)
Many thanks to Mohammad Fadel for joining us this past month as a guest blog editor and for his thoughtful and thought-provoking posts. In case you missed any of them, here is a compilation of his posts: Is Islamic Purposivism (maqāṣid al-sharīʿa) a Thinly-Disguised Form of Utilitarianism? Slavery and Freedom in the Yaḥyā b. Yaḥyā (d. … Continue reading Thank you, Mohammad Fadel!