Repugnancy in the Arab World

H. Hamoudi
{"title":"Repugnancy in the Arab World","authors":"H. Hamoudi","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/rwp4m","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\"48 Willamette Law Review 427 (2012)“Repugnancy clauses†-- those constitutional provisions that, in language that varies from nation to nation, require legislation to conform to some core conception of Islam -- are all the rage these days. This clause, a relatively recent addition to many modern constitutions, has emerged as a central focus of academic writing on Muslim state constitutions generally, and on Arab constitutions in particular. Much of the attention it has received has been enlightening and erudite. Yet one aspect of the broader repugnancy discourse that deserves some attention is an important, often de facto, temporal limitation on the effect of the clause. There appears to be a rising sentiment that repugnancy in the Arab world should not apply to legislation enacted prior to the date that the repugnancy clause was inserted into the constitution. Irrespective of electoral results throughout the region heavily favoring parties that seek a more robust role for shari'a in public life, the trend seem to be growing deeper roots. This is particularly ironic because the non-retroactive canon is fundamentally incoherent, both from the perspective of constitutional structure as well as substantive policy. As to the former, surely a constitutional amendment of this sort must generally have retroactive effect. It would make little sense to amend a constitution to grant all citizens equal protection under the law and then for a court to suggest that existing slavery laws might be exempted because enacted before the amendment in question. Such a result would be one that courts would generally resist to the extent it was possible to do so, given how much violence is done to the amendment by the limitations. This would seem to be no less the case for a clause requiring legislative conformity with Islam. Moreover, as a matter of policy, if there exists in any state a broad view that law should conform to Islam (a commonly stated Islamist position), and if that view is widespread (a fair conclusion given recent electoral results), then surely the advocates of that view should be as willing to apply it to past legislation as to future. Either the Islamicity of legislation is a cornerstone of the Muslim state or it is not. If it is, then the date of the legislation vis-à -vis the date of the repugnancy amendment is surely beside the point for the advocates of shari'a conformity. Indeed, the fact of the incoherence may well explain the reluctance to discuss it often, particularly openly. Ironically, however, despite the incoherence, the limitations on repugnancy have spread. Given this, this Article addresses how and why these limitations grew so popular, and what it might portend for the future of Islamist parties in the Arab world.\"","PeriodicalId":129013,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Law eJournal","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy of Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/rwp4m","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

"48 Willamette Law Review 427 (2012)“Repugnancy clauses†-- those constitutional provisions that, in language that varies from nation to nation, require legislation to conform to some core conception of Islam -- are all the rage these days. This clause, a relatively recent addition to many modern constitutions, has emerged as a central focus of academic writing on Muslim state constitutions generally, and on Arab constitutions in particular. Much of the attention it has received has been enlightening and erudite. Yet one aspect of the broader repugnancy discourse that deserves some attention is an important, often de facto, temporal limitation on the effect of the clause. There appears to be a rising sentiment that repugnancy in the Arab world should not apply to legislation enacted prior to the date that the repugnancy clause was inserted into the constitution. Irrespective of electoral results throughout the region heavily favoring parties that seek a more robust role for shari'a in public life, the trend seem to be growing deeper roots. This is particularly ironic because the non-retroactive canon is fundamentally incoherent, both from the perspective of constitutional structure as well as substantive policy. As to the former, surely a constitutional amendment of this sort must generally have retroactive effect. It would make little sense to amend a constitution to grant all citizens equal protection under the law and then for a court to suggest that existing slavery laws might be exempted because enacted before the amendment in question. Such a result would be one that courts would generally resist to the extent it was possible to do so, given how much violence is done to the amendment by the limitations. This would seem to be no less the case for a clause requiring legislative conformity with Islam. Moreover, as a matter of policy, if there exists in any state a broad view that law should conform to Islam (a commonly stated Islamist position), and if that view is widespread (a fair conclusion given recent electoral results), then surely the advocates of that view should be as willing to apply it to past legislation as to future. Either the Islamicity of legislation is a cornerstone of the Muslim state or it is not. If it is, then the date of the legislation vis-à -vis the date of the repugnancy amendment is surely beside the point for the advocates of shari'a conformity. Indeed, the fact of the incoherence may well explain the reluctance to discuss it often, particularly openly. Ironically, however, despite the incoherence, the limitations on repugnancy have spread. Given this, this Article addresses how and why these limitations grew so popular, and what it might portend for the future of Islamist parties in the Arab world."
阿拉伯世界的反感
48《威拉米特法律评论》(Willamette Law Review)第427期(2012)€œRepugnancy条款——这些宪法条款要求立法符合伊斯兰教的某些核心概念,各国的语言各不相同——最近非常流行。这一条款是许多现代宪法中相对较新的附加条款,已成为一般穆斯林国家宪法,特别是阿拉伯国家宪法的学术著作的中心焦点。它所受到的很多关注都是具有启发性和博学性的。然而,在更广泛的反感话语中,值得注意的一个方面是对该条款效力的重要的、通常是事实上的时间限制。似乎有一种日益高涨的情绪认为,阿拉伯世界的反感不应适用于在反感条款被插入宪法之前颁布的立法。尽管整个地区的选举结果都非常倾向于寻求伊斯兰教法在公共生活中发挥更强大作用的政党,但这种趋势似乎正在深入人心。这尤其具有讽刺意味,因为无论是从宪法结构的角度还是从实质性政策的角度来看,不可追溯的经典都是根本不连贯的。至于前者,这类宪法修正案当然通常必须具有追溯效力。修改宪法给予所有公民平等的法律保护,然后法院建议现有的奴隶制法律可能被豁免,因为它是在修正案之前制定的,这是没有意义的。考虑到限制条款对修正案造成的暴力程度,法院通常会在可能的范围内抵制这样的结果。这似乎与要求在立法上与伊斯兰教保持一致的条款同样适用。此外,作为一个政策问题,如果在任何一个州存在一种广泛的观点,即法律应该符合伊斯兰教(一种普遍陈述的伊斯兰教立场),如果这种观点广泛传播(鉴于最近的选举结果,这是一个公平的结论),那么这种观点的倡导者当然应该愿意将其应用于过去的立法,就像应用于未来一样。要么立法的伊斯兰化是穆斯林国家的基石,要么不是。如果是这样,那么立法的日期相对于-×—相对于厌恶修正案的日期,对于伊斯兰教法一致性的倡导者来说,肯定是无关紧要的。事实上,不连贯的事实可以很好地解释为什么不愿经常讨论它,尤其是公开讨论。然而,具有讽刺意味的是,尽管存在不一致性,但对反感的限制已经扩大。鉴于此,本文将阐述这些限制是如何以及为什么变得如此受欢迎的,以及它可能预示着阿拉伯世界伊斯兰政党的未来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信