ABSTRACT
The concept of legal pluralism has been a contested subject of research. It has attracted attention in Europe. The presence of different groups of immigrants has raised the question of whether they should be treated differently according to their religious or original national laws. At the heart of the discourses taking place currently on legal pluralism lays the question of how to balance equality and difference.
Two theoretical points of view in this regard stand out. The first theoretical orientation advocates legal centralism in the state, considers it to be the basic foundation on which liberal-democratic nations rely on, argues for the state’s monopoly on legal productions and a monistic conception of law and warns all the same of depriving the state of its capacity as a social actor. The second theoretical standpoint argues for legal pluralism, maintains that legal centralism is more relevant within a Western model jurisprudence, that it ignores the experience of non-Western nations.
This discussion, while concerning itself with describing legal and social realities in Western and non-Western states, has rarely touched on the political function of legal pluralism or the actual experience of legal pluralism in non-Western countries specifically with its often grave political and human rights consequences. Based on fieldwork conducted by the author, this chapter presents the context and consequences of the application of Islamic law in the UK Sharia Councils and Muslim Arbitration Councils.
