Full Description
Judging Through Narrative explores the normative frames, or judicial narratives, that non-Muslim courts construct when adjudicating Muslim Family Law disputes. The book examines how these narratives shape the rule of law, gender reform, and public trust in the justice system. Drawing on over 400 interviews with judges, lawyers, and litigants, and an analysis of nearly 3,000 judicial decisions from Ghana, India, Israel, and Greece, the book reveals how coherence and fragmentation in judicial storytelling influences legal legitimacy and reform. Introducing the concept of 'narratival (in)cohesion', this work offers a new framework for understanding how courts mediate between religion, rights, and state authority. Bridging law, political science, and socio-legal studies, it is an essential resource for scholars, policymakers, and practitioners seeking to understand how judicial narratives shape the lived experience of law in diverse, multi-religious societies.
Contents
1. Introduction; 2. When courts speak in tongues: narratival multivocality, (in)cohesion, and the contest over legal authority and meaning; 3. Narratival exclusion and its consequences: 'Mohammedan law' in Ghanaian courts; 4. Narratival alignment and its consequences: 'Shariʿa' in Israeli courts; 5. Narratival conflict and its consequences: 'Sacred Muslim law' in Greek courts; 6. Narratival dissonance and its consequences: 'Shariat' in Indian courts; 7. Conclusion; Glossary of foreign terms; Bibliography; Index.
