Explore the vast range of titles available.

The acknowledgment of juristic disagreement (ᶜilm al-ikhtilāf) as an independent field of Islamic law by Western historians of Fiqh and Uṣūl is over a century and a half old. Yet, there is still much ambiguity and confusion about this legal subarea, its history, its theories and methods, and its place in the emergence and development of Islamic law. This paper provides a critical reading of modern Western studies of ᶜilm al-ikhtilāf. It analyzes the ways in which Western scholars have conceived of this sub-science and visits key unresolved issues with a focus on the conceptual and methodological undertaking of ᶜilm al-ikhtilāf. Through its critical reading of modern Western studies of ᶜilm al-ikhtilāf, this paper mends two gaps in the examined scholarship: the conceptual confusion of the concepts of ‘ikhtilāf’ and ‘khilāf’ on the one hand, and the confusion of the genres of “ikhtilāf fiqhī” (juristic disagreement) and “jadal fiqhī” (juristic dialectics) on the other. The methodology employed in this study comprises a comprehensive and interdisciplinary approach, which bridges the realms of pre-modern and modern sources. It hinges on a meticulous analysis of both Muslim and Western studies of Islamic law, deliberately interweaving these two dimensions to provide a more holistic and nuanced perspective on the questions undertaken within this research. After close examination, it is observed that key distinctions made with regard to the science of ᶜilm al-ikhtilāf, such as between the concepts of ‘khilāf’ and ‘ikhtilāf’, are a modern invention that has no lexical precedent. According to this study, distinction is to be made between Fiqh-based, practical disagreements and Uṣūl-based, theoretical disagreements. This study contributes the first source reading of Western scholarship on the science of juristic disagreement. In addition, classifying ᶜilm al-ikhtilāf in terms of practical (Fiqh-based) and theoretical (Uṣūl-based) studies is an original reading.

Over the past half-century, the study of Islam in the Muslim world has been preoccupied with three global projects: maqāṣid al-sharīᶜa (the higher objectives of revealed law), al-wasaṭiyya al-islāmiyya (Islamic moderation), and aslamat al-maᶜrifa (Islamization of knowledge). Of these three, the latter has been the most substantial enterprise due to its ambitious work plan, extensive scope, and far-reaching influence. However, in recent decades, the Islamization of knowledge project has undergone significant developments culminating in its reformulation as ‘knowledge integration’ (al-takāmul al-maᶜrifī). This paper traces and analyzes the key manifestations of this notable transformation. Firstly, it surveys the various contexts of eschewing the concept of ‘Islamization’ and adopting ‘integration’. Secondly, it examines the conceptualization of the construct of ‘al-takāmul al-maᶜrifī’ within pre-modern and contemporary Islamic contexts. Thirdly, it investigates the practical implementation of knowledge integration with a special focus on the domain of higher education. The question that brings all three sections together is whether the knowledge integration model embodies a true paradigm shift or is a mere name change while bearing on the old rationale and approach of Islamization. The present paper argues that, under the banner of al-takāmul al-maᶜrifī, a shift from an internally focused intellectual effort to one that envisions new opportunities for epistemological renewal is recognizable at the individual level. However, institutionally, the application of this paradigm is still pending full and effective realization.

Slavery, the State, and Islam is Fagan's English rendering of Mohammed Ennaji's 2007 work Le Sujet et le Mamelouk: Esclavage, Pouvoir et Religion dans le Monde Arab, a historical study of the economics of power in the relationship among slavery, Islam, and monarchy. [...]because Ennaji makes no mention of the religious scene and the role that religion had played in the master-slave relation prior to Islam, he gives the impression that the presumed re-division of power between God and king is a distinguishing attribute of the Islamic state.

Islamization of knowledge (islāmiyyat or aslamat al-ma'rifah) has emerged as one of the most significant Muslim global intellectual enterprises over the past half-century. Its efforts to integrate Islamic epistemology with Western knowledge systems have, however, subjected it to extensive criticism, a subset of which dismisses it as an ideological programme aimed at reviving religion, defying secularism, and subverting Western universal values. This article focuses on this subset of criticism and analyses its discourse by framing it within the broader context of the \"Muslim Question.\" Reminiscent of the historical Jewish Question, the \"Muslim Question\" continues to serve as a lens through which Islam and Muslims are systematically constructed as a problem. To retrace and investigate the inherent structure shared by the \"Muslim Question\" and this criticism, this study undertakes a discursive analysis of the decades-long critique of Bassam Tibi. It puts the criticism within the broader narrative of crisis; however, distinguishing it from the European rhetoric of the \"crisis of Islam,\" and questions it at the intersection of reasonable critique and Islamophobia. This article concludes that a critique of the Islamization of knowledge and its recent facet, knowledge integration (al-takāmul al-ma'rifī), should acknowledge the plurality and diversity within Muslim intellectual traditions and resist homogenizing them under reductive categories. Such a merited study will have the potential to promote a more nuanced and balanced engagement with the intricate realities of contemporary Muslim thought and practice.

Islamization of knowledge (islāmiyyat or aslamat al-ma‘rifah) has emerged as one of the most significant Muslim global intellectual enterprises over the past half-century. Its efforts to integrate Islamic epistemology with Western knowledge systems have, however, subjected it to extensive criticism, a subset of which dismisses it as an ideological programme aimed at reviving religion, defying secularism, and subverting Western universal values. This article focuses on this subset of criticism and analyses its discourse by framing it within the broader context of the “Muslim Question.” Reminiscent of the historical Jewish Question, the “Muslim Question” continues to serve as a lens through which Islam and Muslims are systematically constructed as a problem. To retrace and investigate the inherent structure shared by the “Muslim Question” and this criticism, this study undertakes a discursive analysis of the decades-long critique of Bassam Tibi. It puts the criticism within the broader narrative of crisis; however, distinguishing it from the European rhetoric of the “crisis of Islam,” and questions it at the intersection of reasonable critique and Islamophobia. This article concludes that a critique of the Islamization of knowledge and its recent facet, knowledge integration (al-takāmul al-ma‘rifī), should acknowledge the plurality and diversity within Muslim intellectual traditions and resist homogenizing them under reductive categories. Such a merited study will have the potential to promote a more nuanced and balanced engagement with the intricate realities of contemporary Muslim thought and practice.

Over the past half-century, the study of Islam in the Muslim world has been preoccupied with three global projects: maqāṣid al-sharīᶜa (the higher objectives of revealed law), al-wasaṭiyya al-islāmiyya (Islamic moderation), and aslamat al-maᶜrifa (Islamization of knowledge). Of these three, the latter has been the most substantial enterprise due to its ambitious work plan, extensive scope, and far-reaching influence. However, in recent decades, the Islamization of knowledge project has undergone significant developments culminating in its reformulation as ‘knowledge integration’ (al-takāmul al-maᶜrifī). This paper traces and analyzes the key manifestations of this notable transformation. Firstly, it surveys the various contexts of eschewing the concept of ‘Islamization’ and adopting ‘integration’. Secondly, it examines the conceptualization of the construct of ‘al-takāmul al-maᶜrifī’ within pre-modern and contemporary Islamic contexts. Thirdly, it investigates the practical implementation of knowledge integration with a special focus on the domain of higher education. The question that brings all three sections together is whether the knowledge integration model embodies a true paradigm shift or is a mere name change while bearing on the old rationale and approach of Islamization. The present paper argues that, under the banner of al-takāmul al-maᶜrifī, a shift from an internally focused intellectual effort to one that envisions new opportunities for epistemological renewal is recognizable at the individual level. However, institutionally, the application of this paradigm is still pending full and effective realization.

أهداف البحث: مع أن أول بوادر اهتمام المؤرخين الغربيين بالاختلاف الفقهي تعود لأزيد من قرن ونصف مضت، ما زالت الدراسات الغربية لم تعن بتفاصيل هذا العلم وتاريخه، ونظرياته ومناهجه، ودوره في نشأة الفقه الإسلامي وتطوره، وما زالت أيضًا يشوبها الارتباك وعدم الدقة في مسائل منهجية ومفاهيمية عدة. تقدم هذه الدراسة قراءة نقدية في الدراسات الغربية الحديثة التي تناولت الاختلاف الفقهي، سواء من باب مذهبي أم تلك التي تطرقت له بإجمال، وتركز على التصور المفاهيمي والمنهجي المتعلق بالاختلاف في الدراسات الإسلامية الغربية.منهج الدراسة: من خلال قراءة نقدية للدراسات الغربية الحديثة التي اهتمت بعلم الاختلاف، تسعى هذه الدراسة لمعالجة وسد فجوتين رئيسيتين: الخلط المفاهيمي والمعجمي بين مصطلحي \"الاختلاف\" و\"الخلاف\" من جهة، والخلط المنهجي بين الاختلاف الفقهي والجدل الفقهي من جهة أخرى. ويعتمد منهج الدراسة في مقاربة هذا الموضوع على تقديم مقاربة شاملة وبينية، بحيث تقابل بين الدراسات التراثية والمعاصرة من جهة، ومن جهة أخرى، تقدم تحليلًا نقديًا للدراسات الإسلامية والغربية التي عُنيت بمسألة الاختلاف الفقهي، بما أتاح للباحث تقديم تصورٍ متعدد الأبعاد وأكثر دقة لمسائل هذه الدراسة ومباحثها.النتائج: بعد فحص عميق للعديد من الدراسات، يتبين أن الخلاصات المنهجية عند بعض الباحثين، مثل التمييز بين مصطلحي \"الاختلاف\" \"والخلاف\"، هو ابتداع ليس له أساس معجمي في التراث الإسلامي. وفقًا لهذه الدراسة، فإن مقاربة الاختلاف يجب أن تقوم على التمييز بين ما نطلق عليه \"الاختلاف النظري\"، الذي يرتبط بأصول الفقه ويعكس اهتماماتها النظرية والآلية، في مقابل \"الاختلاف العملي\" الذي يرتبط بالفقه كمجال تطبيقي بالأساس.أصالة البحث: تعدّ هذه أول دراسة مرجعية تعنى باهتمام الباحثين الغربيين بعلم الاختلاف، كما أن تصنيف دراسات الاختلاف الفقهي إلى عملية مرتبطة بالفقه ونظرية مرتبطة بأصول الفقه هي قراءة أصيلة ومتميزة.

The acknowledgment of juristic disagreement (ᶜilm al-ikhtilāf) as an independent field of Islamic law by Western historians of Fiqh and Uṣūl is over a century and a half old. Yet, there is still much ambiguity and confusion about this legal subarea, its history, its theories and methods, and its place in the emergence and development of Islamic law. This paper provides a critical reading of modern Western studies of ᶜilm al-ikhtilāf. It analyzes the ways in which Western scholars have conceived of this sub-science and visits key unresolved issues with a focus on the conceptual and methodological undertaking of ᶜilm al-ikhtilāf. Through its critical reading of modern Western studies of ᶜilm al-ikhtilāf, this paper mends two gaps in the examined scholarship: the conceptual confusion of the concepts of 'ikhtilāf' and 'khilāf' on the one hand, and the confusion of the genres of \"ikhtilāf fiqhī\" (juristic disagreement) and \"jadal fiqhī\" (juristic dialectics) on the other. The methodology employed in this study comprises a comprehensive and interdisciplinary approach, which bridges the realms of pre-modern and modern sources. It hinges on a meticulous analysis of both Muslim and Western studies of Islamic law, deliberately interweaving these two dimensions to provide a more holistic and nuanced perspective on the questions undertaken within this research. After close examination, it is observed that key distinctions made with regard to the science of ᶜilm al-ikhtilāf, such as between the concepts of 'khilāf' and 'ikhtilāf', are a modern invention that has no lexical precedent. According to this study, distinction is to be made between Fiqh-based, practical disagreements and Uṣūlbased, theoretical disagreements. This study contributes the first source reading of Western scholarship on the science of juristic disagreement. In addition, classifying ᶜilm al-ikhtilāf in terms of practical (Fiqhbased) and theoretical (Uṣūl-based) studies is an original reading.

Mahmoud Cherif Bassiouni is a distinguished human rights advocate with an astounding career and publication record that exceeds seventy books (authored and edited) and 260 articles. The Sharī‘a and Islamic Criminal Justice is yet another rigorous contribution that should enrich and broaden the scope of the criminal law debate in the Islamic legal system and its relevance to international humanitarian law. The significance of this work lies especially in the Book Reviews 107 author’s sincere endeavor to derive appropriate tools from Islamic law to address contemporary issues of post-conflict and transitional justice. The first chapter, an introductory review of key conceptual constructs and historical developments, examines various topics from the evolution of Islamic legal theory and the Sunni and Shi‘i schools of law to the resurgence of Islamic thought during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In regard to Islamic law’s historical pertinence to issues related to war and peace, the author elaborates especially on two categories: dār al-ḥarb (the house of war) and dār al-silm (the house of peace). Finally, he illustrates four types of treaties: those of peace (salām), truce (hudnah), protection (dhimmah), and safe conduct (amān) ...

Mahmoud Cherif Bassiouni is a distinguished human rights advocate with anastounding career and publication record that exceeds seventy books (authoredand edited) and 260 articles. The Sharī‘a and Islamic Criminal Justice is yetanother rigorous contribution that should enrich and broaden the scope of thecriminal law debate in the Islamic legal system and its relevance to internationalhumanitarian law. The significance of this work lies especially in theBook Reviews 107author’s sincere endeavor to derive appropriate tools from Islamic law to addresscontemporary issues of post-conflict and transitional justice.The first chapter, an introductory review of key conceptual constructs andhistorical developments, examines various topics from the evolution of Islamiclegal theory and the Sunni and Shi‘i schools of law to the resurgence of Islamicthought during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In regard to Islamic law’shistorical pertinence to issues related to war and peace, the author elaboratesespecially on two categories: dār al-ḥarb (the house of war) and dār al-silm(the house of peace). Finally, he illustrates four types of treaties: those of peace(salām), truce (hudnah), protection (dhimmah), and safe conduct (amān) ...