Islam, Gender, and Democracy in Comparatve Perspective Edited by JOCELYNE CESARI AND JOSE CASANOVA I· OFOD UNIVERSITY PRESS • . -· • < ---. :- • _, • , • SIENA COLLEGE LIBRARY OFOD NBRSY PESS Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oord Uniersity Pess is a depament of he Univesity of Oxord. It hers the University's ojtive of xcelene in rsearh, scholarship, and educaion by publishing worldide. Oford is a registered t-ade mark of Oford Uiversity Press in the UK and n certan other countris l Oxford'Unversiy Press 2017 The moal hts of the autho: have been asserted First Edition published in 2017 Impression: 1 All rhs reseed. No pat of this publiaion may e reproduced. stored in a reieval system, or ransmited. in any orm or y any means, wihout the prior pemission in itng of ford Universiy Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by icence or under terms agreed wih the appropriate reprographics rights organzation. Enquies concernng reproduction outside the cope of he above should be sent to the Rihts Depatment, ford Univsiy Prs, at the addrss above You must nt crate his wok in any other orm and you must impose this same condiion on any acquirer P11blished in he United States of Ameica by xord University Press 198 Madison Avenue, Nw York. Y 10016, Unitd Sates of meia Biish H,y atlogung in Publication Data Data aailable Libray of Conress ontrol Nmbe. 2016955345 ISBN 978-0-19-87885-3 Prnted in Grat Britain by CPI Group K) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Lis to third paty websites are proided by xford in god aith and or inormation only. Oxord disclams ny responsibiliy or the materials onained in ny third paty website reerenced n this wor. I· Table of Contens List of Figures and ables List of Contribuos Introduction Jocelyne Cesari 1. State, Islam, and Gender Politics Jocelyne sari 2. Catholicism, Gender, Secularism, and Democracy: Comparative Reflections Jose Csanova ·�- -- 46 63 4. Islamic Law and Muslim Women in Modern Indonesia Robert W. Hener 82 5. Islamic Feminism: National and Transnaionl Dmensions Susanne Schriter 113 PART II: LOCALIZING THE INTERPLAYS BETWEEN GENDER, LAW, AND DEMOCRACY IN DIFFERENT NATIONAL CONTEXTS 9. Islam, Gender, nd Democracy in Iran Ziba Mir-Hosseini - 15 3. Secularism, Gender Inequaliy, and the French State oan W. Scott 8. Law, Gender, and Nation: Muslim Women and he Discontents of Legal Pluralism in India Vrinda Narain I 1 PART I: THE NEXUS OF RELIGION, GENDER, AND DEMOCRACY 6. Gender Roles and Political, Social, and Economic Change n Bangladesh and Senegal Katherine ashall 7. Reorming Muslim Family Laws in Non-Muslm D.emocracies Yuksel Sezgin y.1 [\ jl'l I I ii x 139 160 188 211 Rorming Muslim amily Las 7 Reforming Muslim Famly Laws in Noi-Muslim Democracies usel Sezin Whether in th e Middle East, or elsewhere, reform in amly law has alays generated re �istance �nd co�troversy among those who shre competing isions _ of state- rehg,�n, amilr-naion relaions, and of the place and responsibiliies of _ wo �en m �oc1ety. Resistance to reorming amily las, especially when they are _ _ rdig,ously msprred, has been most pronounced within ethno-reigious commu­ n ities hat h old a minority position vis-a-vis the state hose instituionl ethos _ isibl y rl�cts the majority commnity's ethno-religious vlues and culture. _ This 1s particularly true in the contxt of Muslim minorities in Israel and Greece. Both counti�s hae a long radition of ormlly recognizing and applying . �us �n F �ily Laws (MFLs) that they inherited tom the· Ottoman Empire 1th � �e1r 'legal systems. Despite this long tradition of acommodation of Shan �· ho"ever, b?' countries have rerained rom "reorming" or directly . . mterfermg with rel1g,ous laws of the minority through executive or legislative means-dqemos�y to fear of antagoniz)ng nationlist elements within minority co ��ities. Tis hesitation has caused MFLs in Israel and Greece to Jag C0S1deably behind,th ose of neighborng Muslim nations in terms of both human and women's rights-iiendline�s-ven though these two naions re among the few liberudemocracies iMhe "Shan'a-applying'' world.1 In the absence of direct intevention throuh executive or legislaive means . mto _FLs, both goverments have instead empowered their civl judiciaries to deal with quest10ns concening substantie and procedral aspects of Shari'a law' nd courts.2 Over the ears; civil courts in both counries' have been \�sl �ezei1, ·Ho� Non-Muslim Democracies Engage Shai'a: Lessons or Democratizing M� Nations. Meeng of the Amerian Poliial Science AssoCiaion, August 30, 2014. .. . and Mijam Kkler, "Regulaion of 'Reliion' and the 'Reliious': he Yse! 5'� . Polii of Judicrlization and Bureaucraaion in India and Indonesia,., Comparatie Studies � . Soaey tn and Histoy 56/2 (2014): 1-31. 161 increasinly ased by plaintifs, govenments, and women's and human rihts groups to ntevene in the jurisdition of religious courts in order to uphold constituional rights such as gender equaliy, airness of trials, reedom of reigion, the rihts o(children, and so oth. At his point, the quesion is how Israel and Greece balance the accommodation of Islamic laws, which many consider a "undmently illiberl" 3 legal system, with basic human and women's rights, and hat role did he civil courts play in this process? Did they: serve as viable agents of systemic change' in.MFLs? This is he main question hat he present chapter will seek tt answer. The study relies primar­ il' on analsis of Israeli and Greek religious and ciil court decisions (in Heorew, Arabic, Greek, and Ottoman Turish) as wel as primary data collected by the author hrough paicipatoy obseraions and interiews wlth judges, lawyers, litigants, and experts n Israel proper and Western Thrace, Greece, during multiple fild trips in 2004-15. THE MFL ESTABLISHMENTS IN ISRAEL AND GREECE Boh Israel and Greece have sizeable Muslim mnorities (18 percent in Israel, 5 percent in Greece4) and ormaly recognize and apply MFLs ithin their legal systems. Both countries have inherited heir respective MFL systems rom the Ottoman Empire. MFLs are applied by specialized Shari'a couts in Israel, and·hy mutis in Greece. There are currently eight reional Shari'a courts and a Shari'a Court of Appeals (SCA) (Mahkamah al-lsti'naf al-Shar'iya) ihin Israel's pre-June 5, 1967-borders. The courts are stafed with Muslim qads who are appointed and salaried by the Israeli government. Shari'a courts hve exlusive jurisdiction over marriage and diorce and concurrent jurisdiction with civil family courts over all other maters of personal status of Muslim citizens. Since the enact­ ment of the aw of ,Family Couts (Amenment No. 5) in 2001, Muslm itigants.can choose between cil family and Shari'a courts or such matters as custody and maintenance. Both qadis and civil judges apply the same material laws, which include boh Islamic and relevant secular laws. However, it is not unheard of them to deliver diverging nterpretations due to important normative and sructural diferences.5 3 Anna C. Korteweg and Jennifer A. Selby, Debating Sharia: Isam, Gender Politis, and Famiy Law Arbitration (Toronto: Universiy of Toronto Press, 2012). 4 Only about one-ith of these people lie in Westen Thrace. See: PEW Research Center, he Future,of the Global Muslim Ppulation (Whinton, DC, Pew Reserh Center, 20ll). 5 Moussa Abou Ramadan; .Notes on he Anomaly of the 'Shari' a' Field in Israel," Islamic Law and Sociey 15/1 (2008b): 84-111. 162 163 Yusel Sezin Roming Muslim Family Las The main source of the MFL hat Israeli Shari'a courts (and civil family courts) apply is the Otoman Law of Fly Rights (OLFR) of 1917. For maters not covered by he Otoman Law (e.g. custody), qais oten resort to Egyptian jurist Qadri Pasha's nineteenth-century complation of Islamic personl status law, and other commentaries on Hanai jurisprudence. There is also a body of civil legislation that Shari'a courts must take into consider­ ation whle making their decisions. hese laws include the Women's qual Rights aw (1951), Penal aw Amenment (Bigamy) Law (1959), and the aw of egal Capacity and Guardianship (1962), mong others. These secular laws, at least in principle, place certain penal sanctions and mitations on the intpretaion of substantive MFs. For instance, even though the OLFR allows it, a man cannot unlateraly divorce his wie aganst her will (talaq); neither can he contract a second mariage while still legally married. The Supreme Court of Israel (Beit Ha-Mishpat Ha-Elyon), sitting in its capacity as the High Court of Justice (HCJ) (Beit Mishpat Gavoah Le-Tzedek), is authorized to hear petitions regarding the competence and jurisdiction of Shari'a couts. It reviews wheher Shari'a courts have correcly interpreted and applied relevant statutory las, and overturns their decisions if ond ultra vires.6 As a result of bilateral treaties signed between the Greek and Otoman (later Turkish) governments in the late nineteenth and early twenieth centuries, Greece, to this day, continues to oicilly recognize the jurisdiction of three Muslim muis in he Thrace region (one n Komotini, one in Xanthi, and a deputy mti in Didmoteiho) to adjudicate amily matters among Muslims in accordance with local usage and customs. Mutis are appointed and slaried by the Greek goverment and accorde� ajudicaive uncions without neces­ sarily esabishng a hierarchical network of Shari'a courts-a la Israel. There are no standardized or codiied materil, procedurl laws, or rules of idence that Greek muis apply. Neither are any appeals permitted aganst decisions of the muti. The jurisicion of he mutiate has log been deemed exclusive or Thracian Muslms. Hoever, some Greek judgesand ll scholars argue that Islamic jurisdiction should be considered optional or concurrent ith ciil courts­ meaning that Muslms may (or shold be able to) choose between cil cots and a mti's jsdiction ih respct to their famly matters! Muis' deci­ sions cannot be implemeted without an accompaning enforceabiy decree issued by the competent Cout of First Instance (CoFI) (Monomels Proto­ dikeio). Technically sping, the CoFI is authozed to review hher a mui's decisions he been rendered wihin the limits of his jurisdiction and whether hey have contravened the consituion. The pracice of MFL in both Israel nd Gree� is historically connected to tie Ottoman millet system. In both cases, respective governments have largely r�tained MFs or various poiicl considerations post-independence. For instance, Israel has preserved a modiied version of the old millet system (including Shari'a courts) and utilized it as n insment of vertical segmen­ taion beween Jews and non-Jews, nd hoizonal homogenizaion among the Jews.8 Simarly, Grece retained the muis' juisdicion n Trace to strengthen the Islamic identiy of the Turish-spng poplation in the border rion and inslate he minority against secular nationlist ideology of the Kemalist regime in neighboring Turkey.' The presevation of Shai'a ule was a trteic decision or both gven­ ments, and thy have continuously maintained this outlook. For instance, even thouh they have enacted legislaion restricting the jurisdiction of MFs, regulating the appointment of qadis and mutis, or placing various restrictions (through penal sanctions) on Islamic divorce (talaq) and underage or poy­ gynous marriages, they have rerained-particularly throuh xecutiv� or leislative means-rom directly inteveng in substantive MFLs. The reasons or this rather cautious approach to reorming Islamic law are threeold. First, given the history of thorny raions with her respecive neighbors nd intenal ethno-religious tensions (Greek vs Turkish, Jewish,vs Arab), boh the Israeli nd the Greek governments may have rerai�ed rom direct nter­ ventions in MFLs in order to avoid unnecessarily provoking domesic Muslim minorities and antagonizing the broader Muslim .world (a serious concern or Greece in paricular). Second, since the quion of whether a non-Muslim vernment ould eislate reorm in MFs s a conroersil one, Israeli and Greek governments, lacing the necessary morl authority to conidenly do so, may hve simply decided aginst such a move. 10 Third, as many critics 6 Yehiel S. Kapln, "Enorement of Divorce Judgments in Jeish Cots in Israel: The Intracion between Religious and Constitutional aw," Middle East Law and Govenane 4/1 (2012): 1-68; Ahmad Na tor, "The Role of the Shari'a Court o f Appeals n Promong he Status of Women in Iic aw n a Non-Musim State (Isael)." OSD hss, mein Universiy Wasnton College of Law, 2009); Mossa Abou Ramadao, "Islaic Legal Hybridity and Patirchl Liberalism in the Shari'a os in Israel." Jounal f vantine Studis 4/2 (2015): 39-67; Anat colnicov, "Reigios aw, Reliious os nd Humn ihts iin Israeli onstituional Stutre," Intnational Jounal ofcnstitutional aw 4/4 (2006): 732-40. 7 KOnstannos Tsiis. "Me Aphorme Ten Apophase 405/2000 Tou Monomelos PrOtkeiou Thebon." omiko Vima 49 (2001): 583-93. 8 Yksel S, he Israeli Millet Sstem: xamnng l Plm throuh Lenses of Naion-Building and Human ihts." Israel aw Reiew 43/3 (2010): 631-54. 9 Yanns Kstais. Hieos omos Tou Islam ai Mosoulmanoi Hellenes Polites: etay Koinotsmou ai hileleutherismou (Athns and Thessalonica: E.oseis Skoula. 206). 10 Muhammad haid Masud, "Apostasy and Judiial Separaion n Bitish India," in Isamic eal Intpreation: Mis and heir Fatws, e. Muhammad haid Masud, Brkley Morrs Messic, and David Stephan Powers (Cambridge, A: Hard University Press, 1996), pp. 193-203. 164 165 Yusel Sezin Rorming Muslim amily Laws suggest, perhaps neither the Israeli nor the Greek govement was ever truly interested in social reorm among their Muslm poplations. As one Muslm female lawyer n Greece put it, rather cnicall: "Why should the Greek government care about gender inequality in he Muslim community ... Why would thy bother reorming this archaic system? We are not equl citizens. We are not the state's concern!" 11 Despite penl santions and prohibitions indirectly placed on applicaion of MFs by seclar leislaion in both countries, such pracices as polny (albeit limited),·talaq (unilateral, extrajuicil diorce), child marriages, proy marriages, and gender-nequal inheritance, custoy, and maintenance laws continue to exist and undermne he constitutionally and ntenationlly protected undamental rights and libertis of Muslm cizens (especily women and children). 12 In both counries it is not uncommon or a Muslim wie to be denied maintenance because she is deemed a "disobedient" wife, or or a divorced woman to lose custody of her minor-aged chilren when she remaries, or or a daughter to receve only half of her brother's share rom her parents' inherince. When people encounter such systemic inequalities and come to view a particular orum as "unjust" or "unavorable," they oten sart shopping between compeing juisictions and lgal regimes. Boh the Israeli and the Greek legal systems alow Muslim litigants to choose between cil and religious laws and courts with respect to certain personal status matters. Moreover, Muslim litigants can also ask cil courts, when possible, to iew and overturn the rulings of reliious courts and authoriies if hy believe the religios auhority violated the constitution, misinterpreted the law, or over­ stepped its jurisdiction. As a result, in both countries, the use of cil law and courts by Musim litians or amily matters that historilly fell under the puview of reliious couts is on the ise. For instance, the secretay general of the Mtiate .of Komotini reports that whle the muti issued about 185 inheritance (faaiz) atwas per annum beween 1964 and 1985, and 20 be­ tween 1985 and 2005, that yealy averge has now flen to 3-5. 13 This decline indicates that the majoriy of Thracian Muslns noadays preer to use civil law and courts or inheritance matters. lthouh there are no oicial statistics available, anecdotal evidence, and my interviews ih arious stkeholders,14 sugst that the nmber of Israeli Muslms using civil amily couts is alo incrasing-specialy considering tha, prior to 2001, the cil cout opion s not ailable to Muslms. For instance, ding 2006-10, 66 percent of child cstody cass, 22 percent of alimony cases, and 39 percent of child support cases lodged by Kayan, a emnist legl aid orgazation seng predominanly Arab women n Israel, were iled at civil amly cos (ayan 2011 ). In brie, in boh counties, cil courts hae become more inoved ith yay reglation and appliction of MFs, especilly over the last deade. In the remainder, I wl trace the impact of the increased inolvement of Israeli and Grek civil couts in he relaion of MFs y looing t the respecive Shari'a jurispudence delivered in each over he last three decades, a1d inquire wheher such couts have nctioned a. iable agents of systemic legal change in Muslim laws by rendering these laws more compliant wih the basic human and women's rihts standards which lie at oundation of democratic rle. 11 12 Personal inteiew. Subjet delined to be idntied, Komoini, Greece, March 2015. CEDA W, "Concluding Comments of the Commitee on the Eliminaion ofDisaimination against Women: Greece," 2007, http:/ /ww.iotita.r/en/var/uploads/Grce_%20Conlung_ comments_OHE.pdf>; Thomas Hmarber, "Report y Commissioner or Human hts of the Council of Europe," 2009, http�//wcd.coe.int/wcViewDoc.Jsp!id=l409353>: Yksel Sez­ gin, Human Righs under State-Enfored Reliious Family Las in Isael, Ept and 'India (Cambridge: Cambridge Universiy Press, 2013). 13 Personal inteiew wih Mustafa Imamolu. Komotini, Greece, March 2015. 14 Phone inteiew with Heba Yazba. Aprl 2010. ISRAELI CIVIL COURTS AND THEIR SHARI'A JURISPRUDENCE he ih Cot ofJsice As noted n the section "The MFL Establishments in Israel nd Greece," decisions of Israeli Shari'a couts are subject to reiew by the HC). In cases deling ih Shari'a law, justices of the HC) note in amost every judgment that their intervention is limited to cases inolving ultra virs, inringement of he principles of natural jusice ('ekronot tsedek tiv'i), and disre;d or binding statutoy rules aimed at religious courts.15 For instance, as early as 1955, in a Muslim custody case, the HCJ led that if a Shari'a court conined itself to the religious law alone and disregarded the secular legisl�tion that it was leglly bound to appy, it ould be acing ultra virs, and thereby its "decision would hve no efect under the law.16 In the ollowing decades, the HCJ continued holding Shari'a courts responsible or the application of secular laws, and reminded them that it would strike down their rings if statutory laws were inored. 17 The irst two generaions of Israeli qadis had embraced a somewhat pragmatic approach toward the HCJ, oten complying ih seclar laws to avoid any direct conict wih he civl judiciay. 18 15 For emple, see: HJ 8906/04, HCJ 1318/11, HJ 11230/05, HCJ 5912/06, HCJ 473/09. 16 HCJ 187/4. 17 For instance, see: HCJ 5227/97. 18 Ah aron ayish, "he Transfomaion of the Shari'a rom Jurists' Law to Stautoy Law in the Contempory Muslim World," Die elt des slas 44/1 (2004): 85-113; Nator, "The Role 166 167 Yisel Sezgin Reforming Muslim Family aws However, the nature of the relationship between the HCJ and Islamic courts began to change in the 1990s. In the early 1990s, Israel eperienced a "con­ stitutional rolution." In 1992, the nesset (Israeli parliament) enacted two Basic Laws dealing wih undamentl rights and liberties. 19 Three years later, the HCJ, in a lnmark rulin,20 stabshed is authoiy to onduct judicial rviews of any unconsitutional law enacted by the Knesset.21 In this new ra, the cot began maing ncreasng use of its entrenched powers to chal­ lenge the authoriy of religious courts and require hem to apply he nely enacted Basic aw of Human Diiy nd Libety (1992) in order to ensure that individuals appearing beore reliious cots coninue to enjoy their basic righs.22 Historically, in contrast to its riew of rabbinical court decisions, the HCJ's riew of Shari'a rulings hve been more deferential.23 The cot, not feeling at ease in its role as "high interpreter of shari'a," had usually rerained rom interfering with substanive aspects of Islamic law, particularly ith respect to mrriage and divorce.24 In he post-1994 era, however, the court, while largely maintainng its poliy of non-interference in marriage and divorce, begn to take a more activist stance wih respet to such matters as custody, paterniy, and maintenance to promote and protect the rights of women and cldren. For instance, in a landmark case in 1995,25 the HCJ granted a Muslim child on out ofwedlock ciil pateity y bpaSsing the jursicion ofShari'a cous, which had reused to rant the child reliious patenity. The HCJ resoned that th� Basic aw of Human Dignity as the supreme law of he land (ie. binding upon reliious courts), and bstoed upon the ild a undamental right to now her iliaion in order to y enjoy her popery, umily, and humn ihts. ise, in a sr dcision in 2013, the cot delared hat gender equaiy 1s an interl aspect of human digiy that was protected nder he 1992 Basic aw, and that l sae agencies, incluing Shari'a couts, ere obliged to abide by the principle of equliy. This created a her obligaion or adis, justices argued, to sk more fleible and lieal interpretaions of Shari'a ith an ee o'gender equali: "If there is a school of thouht [e.g. Hani, Hanbli, Shai'i, i] that accepts the principle of equaliy, then reliious couts shold prefer it >ver schools of reliious law that are inconsistet ih this priniple."26 he HCJ's increasing ativism prooked a strong defensive reaction rom he Shari'a couts. For insance, Qadi Ahmad Natour,· who served s he president of he SCA n 1994-2013, strongly opposed the HCJ's intevenions nd the mplementation of secular legislations by Shari'a courts. Upon his appointment in 1994, Qadi Natour swily mvd to ban the applicaion of all secular non-Shari'a-based laws (ncluding the Basic Laws) 27 by the Shari'a couts.28 Although on the surface the relations between he HCJ and Shri'a courts have turned ncreasinly adversarial ollowing the ban, the rhetoric and pratice of conrontation adualy gae wy to a nw phase of dialecticl transormations at Shari'a courts, and of a smbiotic rlationship between the cil and Islamic judiciaries. In the ace of he HC)'s rowing inteventions, the SA mbraced a deensive sirategy in order to protet the jurisdiction of the Islamic judiciary. The new strategy, which may be called "subtle compnce," was to comply with the spit of the secular law while publicly reusing to recognize it. In essence, the court has intenaed and Islamicied the concepts derived ,rom �ecular legislations to prevent uture intevenions into Shari'a by the H].29 of he Shari'a Court of Appeals"; Yithak Reiter, "Qadis and the Implemenlion of Islamic aw in Present Day Isael,• n slamic La: heoy and Practie, ed. R GJave and E. Kemeli (London: LB. Tauris. 1997), pp. 205-31. 19 Basic aw: Human Diniy and Liberty; Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation. 20 HCJ C.A. 6892/93. 21 a n Hirchi, Towards ]ust9cray: he Oigins and Consequenes ofhe New Consiution­ alism (Cambridge, MA: Harard Universiy Press, 2004); Gary Jery Jacobsohn, "ter the Reoluion," Israel Law Reiew 3412 (2000): 139-69; Gideon Sapir, "Constitutional Reoluions: Israel as a Cse-Study," Intnaional Jounal fLaw in ontxt 5/4 (2009): 355-78. 2 For i\St3lce, see: HCJ 3914/92, HCJ 100/92. so see: Ruh Halpein-Kaddari, "Expres­ sions of Legl Plurlism in Israel: he Interacion between he High Cot of Justie nd Rabbnical Cous in Family Matters nd Beot,-in Jesh amily aw in the Sate of ae� ed. M. D. A. Freman (Binghamton, Y: Global Publications, 2002), pp. 185-244.; Ran Hirschi, ConstiuHonal heocray (Cambridge, MA: Haard Uiversiy Press, 2010); apl n, "Eforce­ ment of Dvorce Judmnts in Jewish orts� Isaln: Hanna Lener, Making onstitutiOns in Deply Divided Societies (Cambridge and New Yorlc ambridge Universi y Press, 2011); Moussa Aou amadan, •The Tnsiion rom Tradition to Reorm: The Shari'a Appeals Cot Ruins on Chld Custody (1992-2001)." Fordham ntenational Law Jounal 26 (2003): 595-655; Patricia). Woods.Judicial P�wer and ational Politis: ous and Gendr in the Reliious­ Secular onflict in Irael (lbany, NY: SUNY Pres; 2008). " Josh Goodman, "Diine Judment: Jl Reiew of Religios gal Ssts in India and Israel," Hstings IntnaHonal and omparaHe Law Reiew 32/2 (2009): 477-528. " Alisa Rubin Peled, "Shari'a under Chalenge: The Politial Histoy oflmic egal Insi­ tutions in Israel," Middle ast Jounal 63/2 (2009): 241-59; Moussa Abou Ramadan, "he Shari'a in Israel: Islamzation, lsraelization and the Invented Islic aw," UA ounal ofIsamic and Near Esten Law 5 (2005-6): 81-129. " For insanc, se: HCJ C.A. 3077/90. 6 HCJ 3856/11. The HCJ repled SCA 2011/28. 27 In an inteview that I conduted wih him in January 2005 in Jlem. Qadi Natour xpresed his objeion to the implementation of the Knesset-passed laws by S�ari'a courts� the ollowing words: .As shai'a judges, I hink hat one of the most impotnt duies that we have is to apply he shai'a law, and try to mae it pre shi'a ... not be involed with any patiular Israeli law.... Shri'a is pat ofour idenity, chracter, our bloning. our root ... Ifwe apply the Israeli lw ... all of these l be [lost]." 8 �ayish, he Transormaion of the Shari'a•; Natour, "he Role of the Shari'a Court of Appals"; Ramadan, "The Shari'a in Israel"; madan, "Islamic eal Hybii; Iad halka, Sharl'ah Ba- "Idan Ha-Moni: a-alakhah a-Mi'UHm Ha-Msemiyim (Tel Aiv: eslng. 2014). 9 aish, "The Transormaion of the Shari'a"; Iyad aha, "The Challenge of As­ tering Justice to an Islamic Minoiy Living in a Non-Moslem State: The Shari'a Courts in Israel," ounal ofLevanHne Studies 212 (2012): 151-73. 168 169 Yusel Sezin Reorming Muslim amily Laws From this point of view, principles such as "human dignity" and so on were no longer treated as secular impositions but as concepts intel to the Islamic tradition.30 The subtle compliance was most visible in child custody cases. The Legal Capacity and Guardiansip aw of 1962 established "the bst intersts of the child principle" (masahat al-sheer) as he sole criterion in custody cases. Alhough he ist wo generaions of qadis oten based her custody (hadana) decisions on the 1962 law, the post-1994 leadership of Shari.a courts prohibited-just like other secular lavs-the application of said law by the Islamic judiciary. The SCA has repeately indicated in its judments that the 1962 law was inerior to "noble" Shari'a, hence it was not to be implemented by Islamic courts.31 Despite its refusal to recognize he 1962 law, however, the court also claimed that, having "originated" in Islamic law, he principle of "he best interest of the child" was to be considered he guiding principle in custody cases.32 By intenng secular rames and reerences such as "the best interest of the child," the court mainly aimed to restrict he HCJ's interventions in its jurisiction.33 Did the new stratey succeed in ending of urther intervenions by the HC)? The answer is equivocl. It ulimately depends on whether, in a ien ase, he Shri'a courts correcly intepretd, or nstance, the best interest of the child principle, and whether hey ollowed the procedure outined n he civil law. According to Shari'a law, apostasy results in a parent's loss of his or her children's .custody. In two custody cases where the mothers reportedly converted rom Islam to Christianity, he regionl Shari'a cot in Haifa, clamng that the best interests of the children ere to be raised in a Muslim enironment, revoed the custoy rights of the two mothers. Although the SCA upheld the Haia court's rlings in both cases, the HCJ reversed both decisions, argng hat in both cases the reliious court had ailed to tke into consideraion he welare oicers' repors about he children's well-being, but instead based its decision solely on religious consideraions.34 In other words, even thouh the Shari'a court employed the priniple of the best interests of he child, the HCJ rejeted he cout's religion-based interpretation of the prnciple, particularly in the absence of corresponding proessional (read his a-"secular") justiation.35 lhough the HCJ oten reminds and orders reliious courts to mae custody decisions on secular consideaions (rather than the reliion or marital stats of he parent) in accordance ih the 1962 law, it lso los rliious cos to inoe religious justiicaion or their decisions as long s the deision n quesion complies with the procedal requirements and normaive out­ come the HC) seeks to adance.36 For instance, in one particular case concen­ ing the Shari'a court of Taibe,37 which reokd custody rihts of a mother due tr per remariage, the HCJ chose not to ntevene because the decision was in consonance wih the welare oicer's recommendaion38-ven houh the Taie cort made is decision slly on rliios consideaions. Israeli Shari'a courts operate under pressure rom three distinct roups and institutions: the eminists and he Islamists-both ithin he Muslim �ommunity-and the civl judiciary.39 In response to challenges rom these a;tor, Shari'a courts he undergone a semi-oluntary process of dilectical transformaion. Thy have simltaneously undertaken "Islamization" and "seculariation" of their substantive las nd procedures.40 The indirect role hat he HCJ has playd in this process cannot be denied. Its constant threat of intevention h&s orced the Shari'a courts to intenalize certain normatve ms and concepts of civil law, and to mend their rules and procedres.41 Qadis were more receptve to ideas .anq concepts (e.g. best interests of the chld, human diniy) or which they could ind a leiimate basis and justication n the Islamic tradition han merely secular concepts that could be interpreted as contradictory to the religious txts (e.g. gender equlity). However, civil fly courts, ih which Shari'a courts hve been in direct competition over jurisdiction and clientele since 2001, hve had an even. reater impact than the HCJ in this reorm process. l0 Natour, he Role of the Shari'a ourt of Appels•; Moussa Abou Ramadan, "Hitpahteh­ hoiut Ahronot Be-achaqat Yeladim Be-Batei Ha-Din Ha-Sharaim; Be'iqvoth Bagaz 9740/05 Plolt n. Bit Ha-Din Ha-Sharai e-lr'uriom, Baaz 1129/06 Ploit ve-i n. a-Dn Ha-Shrai e-lr'uriom," Mshpacha Be'Mishpat 2 (2008a): 69-105; Iyad halka, Al-Mushidi Al-Qaa' Al-Shar'I (Tel Aviv: Israel Bar Association, 2008). 31 For instnce, se: SCA 63/1994, SCA 135/1996, nd SCA 127/1997. 2 For instnce, se: SCA 63/1994, SCA 15/1998, and SCA 56/1999. 33 Moussa Abou amadan, "Hitpahtehoiut Ahronot Be-ahaqat Yeladm Be-Batei Ha-Din Ha-Shaim; Be'iqvoth Baaz 9740/05 Plonlt n. Beit Ha-Din Ha-Sharai Le-Ir'uriom, Bagaz 1129/06 Plonit ve-Ahi n. Ha-Din Ha-Sharai Le-lr'uriom," Mishpacha Be'Mishpat 2 (2008a): 69-105; Moussa Abou Ramadan, "The Recent Deelopments in Citody aw or Muslms in Israel: Gender aod Reliion," Jounal f Women f the Mile st and he samc ord 8 (2010): 274-316. 4 HCJ 9740/05 and HCJ 1129/06. 35 Ramadan, "Islamic Legl Hbridity." " In HCJ 9347/99, the HCJ uphld he ruling of he SCA hat versed the strict Shi'a ot's deision denng a woman 80% of her dower n a divorce ase. Even thouh the SCA bsed its decision solely on religious justiications rather than secular law, he HCJ chose not to inevne bae the outome was prsuant to the normaive oje it souht to adne (e.. womo's eqal hs). _ 37 HCJ 8906/04. 38 That iing custody to the mother wold hve jeoprzed the well-being of he cld as hr stpather was an abusive and iolent man. 59 Ido Shahr, "Legal Reorm, Interpreive Commniies and he Quest or Leitimacy: A Contl Analysis of a Legl Ciclar," n aw, Cstom. and Statute in he Muslim or: Studis in onor fAharon ash, ed. Ron Shaham (iden: Brll, 2007), pp. 199-228. 0 Nator, he Role of the Shari'a Cot of Appeals"; Ramadan, "he Shari'a in Isral"; ahlka, "The Chlenge of Administering Jsice." 41 aish, ihe Trnsormaion of the hari'a." 170 Yusel Sezin Rorming Muslim amily Las Civil Fmily os Table 7.1 Family Couts vs Shari'a Cots: Spousal Maintenance nd Chld Suppot Ards. As mentiond in the secion "The MFL Establishments in Isael and Greece/ since 2001 Muslim litigants can choose between civil family and Shari'a courts or any personal status matter except mariage and dorce. When deciding on these matters of concurrent jurisdiction ( e.g. maintenance, child support, custody), however, both civl and religious judges need to appy the same material law. Where there is concurrent jurisdicion, there is always compe­ ition beween the orums or clients, discursive power, and textual authoriy. This has also been true or the relationship between the Israeli Shari'a and ciil courts. In act, the competiion beween the wo court systems has been the riing enine of reorm with regard to Israeli Shari'a courts. In his competition, Shai'a cous enjoy a number of structural adantages over their civil counterparts. First, ail judges at Shari'a couts are Muslims who speak Arabic and are fiar with the clturaily speciic concens of Muslm litigants. In family courts, nearly ail judges are Hebrew-speaing Jews (at the time of writing there were only our Arab judges). Furthermore, amly courts do not provide pro bono translation services or Arab citizens. Second, the conduct of proceedings and laim submissions are easier at Shari'a courts. Moreover, the duration of proceedings are shoter at religious courts, where women are lso granted automaic xemption rom applicaion and iling fees in alimony and chld maintenance cases. In family courts, exemption requires an application along ih suppotng docments and an attoney's aidavit. 42 What ·keeps ly couts in the game, however, is her comparaive adantage ith respect to pecuniay awards. As shown in Table 7.1, spousal alimony and ld support awards made by civil amily couts are usualy larger than those obined in Shari'a courts. This in itself, despite the acces­ sibity ssues menioned in the previous pararaph, creates an incenive, particularly or emale Muslm litigants, to choose civil amily courts over Islamic c?uts. However, "' �y analysi� of the emerging cse law shows, the _ compelition between the cil and Islamic courts has not been just about the lientele, but lso the power to interpret the "dine" law.43 In maintenance cases, amily court judges apply the OLFR as the source of Muslm substantive law-jst like qadis. They lso oten cite releant aticles ofQadri Pasha's Code of Personal Status (es,eciaily in regard to child support, 2 ayan, "Five Years of egal Aid: Summary and Anlsis," 2011, <htp://w.kayan.orgJ/ Pbli/ER20110101_5%20Year%20Lel%20Aid620Repot.pd>. 3 Pierre Bourdieu, •1a Force du Droit: Elemns por ne Socioloie du Champ Juridique," Acts de la Recherhe en Sciences Socia/es 64 (1986): 4: Brinley Mois Mesic, he alliraphic State: Tual Domination cmd Histoy in a Muslim Sociey (Breley: Universiy of Calioia Press, 1993). Spousal Maintenance 171 hild Suppot Daion of Proceedings (aveage) Minimu/ Mmum Award Duration of Procings (avage) Minmmn/ Maimum Awrd (per hld) Family corts NIA 11 months NIS 1,200-NIS 1,600 Shari'a courts NIA NIS 1,100NIS 1,800 NIS 1,000NIS 1,500 4 months NIS 700-NIS 1,300 our: Bad on e s hand y Kan ween 2006 nd 2010 (Kan. 2011). which is not included in the OLFR).44 Jewish judges ho are not rained in �bic or Islamic law oten rely on Hebrw textbooks and Engish sources on ;usJ law or heir decisions.45 Judges t amily courts hae been familif with the Jewish law because they have been applying it since 1953, w,ereas they started applng Muslim law only in 2001. Perhaps as a result of this legacy, in most Muslim personal status cases, judges (both Jewish and M1slim4, 7) oten draw paralels bween Shari'a and haakhah in terms of spousal or parental obligations. One gets the sense that he Islamic law is nterpreted throuh the l�ns of Jeish law in the Isra� ly couts. How­ eer, it appears that, over he last decade, some Jewish judges hae gron more amliar and comortable with appling Islamic law. Some have moved byond merely reproducing citations rom textbooks to directly citing the Qur'an48 a\d Hadith9 of the Prophet Mohammad.50 Although some of the judges argue that thy "interpret religious laws more liberaly and adjust them to modern imes,"51 this usuaily does not go beyond • 4 Alhouh neiher tt s oicially translated into Hebrew, an unoicl nslation of the OLFR exists in an ot-cited textbook by Shelomo Dov Goitein and A. Ben Shemeh, a-Mhpat Ha-Musemi Bi-Medina! Yisa'el (Jerusalem: Mif'l ha-shhpl: eolim, 1957). " 1410-06 Hadera Famly Cot (2007): 11310-04-11 Nazareth Family Court (2012). 6 16411-08-10 Tibeia Family ourt (2010): 1410-06 Hadea Fly Cot (207). , 791-08 rayot Famly Court (2008): 2881-03 Nareth Family Court (2006). 8 Sh AI-Talaq, Verse 6: "&;fi&�i J ,Ji }" [And if_hy sde your ospin), ive thm their rcomnse]: nd Suh l-aqh, Ver e 233: "i,, ls, ii, i ,J, ,;" [He shal bear the cost of heir od nd clothing on eqitable terms]. Cilafin 34258-07-13 Nazreh Fy Cot (2014). 9 .;,J� ��;; � u "." [Tae what is suicient or ou and your children, and he amount shold be jst and reasonable.], Shlh Bukhari, itab al-aqat, cited in 34258-07-13 Nh Fmy ot (2014), 0 The number of amly court decisions citing the Qur'n has rown over he years: 2001-3: two decisions; 2003-5: two decisions; 2005-7: two decisions; 207-9: two decisios; 2009-11: three decisions; 2011-13: ive desions; 2013-15 (May): slx decisions. 51 Email correspondence with Judge ssaf Zagy (Marh 7, 2013) (via the Oice of he President of Supreme Cort of Isael). 172 Yisel Sezin rhetoric.52 On the contray, my anlysis of recent case law suggests that amily corts, through their interpretation of Jslamic law, actually sustain a conser­ vative and "patriarchal" rhetoric about gender roles wihin the Muslim mily. This becomes most apparent in mily courts' interpretation of spousal maintenance rles. The institution of ihtibs is considered the oundaion of spousal duties and obligations in a Muslm marriage.53 Judges oten describe ihtibas as "the duty of the wife to devote herself to her husband, and being physically available to him."54 Ihtibas is the quid pro quo of maintenance. Thy also note that a woman who leaves the marital residence without her husband's permission may be declared a disobedient wife (nshiz). A wife who is deemed disobedi­ ent can lose her right to maintenance. In l decisions dealing with ihtibas, it is also noted hat the burden of proof is on the husband who accuses his wie of disobedience.55 However, if she has alray let the home, then it is her responsibility to prove that she did not violate her coninement obliaion and hat her departure was jusied. However, as repeatedly indicated in various decisions, occasional violence by the husband is not automaticaly considered a just cause because Shari'a is said to, arguably, condone certain' ypes of violence (e.g. "educaionl" iolence, as opposed to "ongoing" io­ lence).56 For instance, in one family cout judment here a woman was deaared a disobedient wife because she had let home due to her husband's lleged verbal assault, it was argued that since Islam even allowed the husband to "discipline" his fe by lighly beating her, verbal abuse alone could not be accepted as an excuse or violaing he duy of coninement.57 A similarly conservative and patriarchal atitude is lso obsevable in cld support ases. According to Islamic law, maintenance of children is the sole• responsibity of the ather. The mother is never required to make inancial contibutions toward her cldren's maintenance, en if she is wealhy.58 As ar as the ather's obigations toward his children are concened, thee are certain similarities between Islamic and Jewish laws: boh discriminate against the ather. lthough famly courts have chalenged the inequality of Jewish· child support laws,59 they have tumed1a blinq· ye to analogous inequality in 52 A good mple of is rhetoial approah an be ound in 2988-06-09 Tiberias Family Cort (2011): "ke other personal Jaws, such as those appling to Jews and Crstins, it is clar that Mslim amly law is n rhaic law which is based on he prnciples and raionales rom earlier perios." 53 34258-07-13 Nazareth Family Court (2014). " 1410-06 Hadera Famly Court (2007). 55 1320/01 Hadera Faly ourt (2006). " 4258-07-13 Nzareth Fly Cot (2014): 1410-06 Hadera Famiy ourt (2007). 7 12810/06 Tel Aiv Family Court (2009). 58 1410-06 Hadea Family ot (2007). 59 In this respect;it can be suggested that Jewish judges at il couts tend to interpret Jwish law more ibely than othodox dyanim at rabbinical cowts. Th y hae reqired Jeish Refoming Muslim Family Las 173 Islaic law and contnued to hold Muslim men solely responsible or the cost of essenial needs of their children, aged 18 and ounger. In brief, there has not been much diference in terms of applied Islamic law between Shari'a and civl family courts, as both systems seemed to have upheld an equally consevative and patriarchal outlook. When both courts operate within the same normative ramework, but one of them systematic­ ally gives out larger child support and alimoy awards, is obviously increases that cout's atractiveness to potential litigans. This dynamic has been at the core of the compeition between Shari'a and amily courts over the last wo decades. The 2001 amendment that redued the jurisdiction of Shari'a couts rom exclusive to concurrent over maters of custody, maintenance, and child support was made possible by efots of the Woring Group or Equality in Personal Status Issues (WGEPSI)-a coalition of Israei (Arab and Jewish) human and women's ighs groups. The coalition was ounded in 1995 and jnmediately began lobbying or a nw law that wold reduce the jrisdicion of reigious couts. As Qadi Natour argues, the 2001 amendment was the most ,serious threat ever posed to the existence of the Muslim couts in Israel since .he ounding of the state.0 Shari'a courts realized hat they would lose their clientle, juisdicion, and monopoly to nterpret Islamic law to cil couts if they coninued business as usual. In response, they initiatd a process of self­ reorm and issued a new judicial decree (masoum qadai) that aimed to increase he appeal of the courts to emale litigants by raising the mount of child suppot and maintenance awards by means of procedul innovation. Prior to 1995, "shari'a couts never ordered a man to pay chld support in an _amount higher than 500 shekels per month," whle his was the mnimum amount ordered by ciil courts or Jewish children.61 Following he issuance of the new judicial decree, both chld support and spousal maintenance awards by Shari'a courts were repoted to have stealy increased.62 Recent aards in pubished decisions are usually in he nge of NIS 1,200-NIS 1,500 per month.63 As commentators suggest, the process of reorm was not just limited to maintenance; the fear of losing its jurisdiction motivated the Islamic judiciay to undertake oher substantive and procedural reorms in various mohers to make equal contrbutions to chilren's maintenance, especialy or hildren older han 15 years of age. For insane, see: 35921-05-13 Nareh Family ourt (2015); 791-08 ayot Famly Cot (2008). 0 Personal inteiew wih Ahmad Nator, Jsalem, January 2005. 61 Maha . l-Taji. •Arab Lol Authoritis in Israel: Hamlas, Naionlism and Dlemmas of Socl Change." (PhD thess, University of Washington, 2008). 62 Sezgin, Human Rihs under Sate4Eforced Reliios amily Laws. 3 For insne, see: SCA 12/2013, 1233/2013 Haa Shari'a Couts. 174 175 Yusel Sezin Reorming Muslim amily Laws areas, incluing divorce, in order to increase their appal and competitiveness vis-a-is the cil judiciay.4 The present sction has analed he Israei HCJ and ciil amly couts' Shari'a jurisprudence and such courts' indirect impact on the eolution and reor mation of MFL. The nt section, "Greek Ciil Courts and their Shari'a Jurisprudence," will do the same or Greek courts by closely analyzing he decisions of local couts of irst instance in Westen Thrace and the Cout of Cassaion (CoC) in Athens. place ofresidence, with the xception of the Dodecanese.65 In 2007, however, the CoFI in Xanthi ruled that the muti had no jurisdiction to adjudiate a dioce inoing a Muslim couple liing jst a ew kilometers outside of his administratve region.66 In ·a similar divorce case,67 this time involing a Muslim couple rom Athens, the oFI n Rodopi took the opposite view and allowed the muti to dissolve the couple's marriage.68 Many contradictoy ings also ist with respect to the mutis' puview oer non-Greek Muslims and non-Mulim Greek cizens (e.g. in mxed marriages).69 It is evident om he analsis of both irst-instance and appellate-level court rulings that there is a great amount of ambiuity among Greek judges con­ cerning muis' jursiction. is lack ofconsensus is nowhere more apparent than in debates over whether a mui's jurisdicion is compulsory or Muslim citizens. In a recent communique isued by the Minster of Jusice, Antonis Roupaiotis, it was arued hat a muti's jurisdiction shold be iewed as toncurrent with ordiny courts, as ieng it as compulsoy would violate the gvernment's constitutional and intenational obligations to protect indiid­ ual rights.7° However, unl recenly, the majority of Grek corts he held that a muti's jurisdiction was mandatory ov Muslims residing in his district nd have reused to hear pertinent famly ases.71 For xample, in 2002, the CoFI in Rodopi ruled a Muslim custody petition inadmissible on the rounds that the dispute was between two Muslm iizens,72 hence the jicion had belonged to the muti not the civl courts.73 Similar judgments closing the doors of civil cou& to Musm citizens were lso issued with respect to marital property, parent-child communication, and aloption.4 Since the enacment o{ aw 1250/1982, Greek Muslims have been ree to choose beween civil and reliious marriage. Faly afairs of those who enter a ciil mariage are governed by the Cil Code (CC) under he jurisdicions of secular cours. This ability to choose between secular and reiious legl systems has been aimed by both the oement, as in he aoementioned communique, and the judiciary. For exmple, the oFI in Xanthi declared, in an important ling, that GREEK CIVIL COURTS AND THEIR SHARI'A JURISPRUDENCE According to aw 1920/1991, a Greek mui is a rliious leader who is also accorded juicil nctions. The olloing mattes, according to icle 5 § 2 of the law, ll under atione mateiae of the mui: mariage, divorce, maintenance, cstod; rdiansip, ls, and nheitnce sputes. In order to cay legal efect, he mui's desions have to be declared enorceable by the locl CoFI. In he atiication process, the cil court ll riew he mui's decision to ensure hat it is itn the bounds ofhisjurisdiction and conorms to the constituion. As noted in he secion "The MFL Establishmens in Israel and Gree," no irct appeals are pemited at muis' deisions. The oly-rather inirect-way to challenge them is to appel against the enforceabiliy decision ofthe oI at the cout of appeals, nd eventually at the CoC (eias Pagos)-the court of·lst resort. hese aicaion and appal stages are the two instans when Grek iil cot judges-all non-Muslims-et to rule over ious aspect ofMFL. l Cos of Frst Instane {· Can a muti mary or divorce Greek•Musms·not residing in his administra­ tive disict, or orein Muslims temporarily residing in Greece? Such ques­ tions usually arise in the process of riw and aiation of mutis' decisions by the locl CoFI in. Thrace. However, despite the clear proision in Article 5 §1 of Law 1920/1991, according to wich the muti can exercise jurisdiction only over Musm Grek cizens residing in his region, there does not seem to be a dea' consensus among Greek judges concerning muis' teritoril (ratione loci) or personl (raione personae) juisdiction. Some cots take a narower view, others a broader one. In a landmark decision in 1980, he CoC ruled that Shari'a law was applicable to all Greek Muslims regardless oftheir 4 Moussa Abou madn, •nvorce efom in the Shari'a Cot of Appls in Israel (1992-2003)," Islamic Law and Sociey 13/2 (2005): 242-74. 7 CoFI, odopi, 98/1997. 6 CoFI, ni, 203/2007. 65 AP 1723/1980. 8 KOnsaninos Tsis. Od and New sam in Ge; Fom storial inoriis to Immirant ewcomes, Studies in Intenation,al Minoriy and Group Rhs (Leiden: nus Nijhof, 2012). •9 See: CoFI, Rodopi, 313/209: Multmnber CoFI, Rodopl, 18n008; CoFI, Xanthi, 83/2004. 0 Greek Parliament Quesion No: 5937/16-01-2013, <htp://whellenicparliament.r/ UsrFles/67715b2c-ec81-4Oc-ad6a-476a34d732bd/7938918.pd>. 71 Tsitsekis, Old and New Islam In Gee; Eleni Velivasaki, "Opeating iious Minority egal Orders in Greece and in the U: A Comparison of the Mi Oice in Komoi and the ic Shari'a Council in London," 2013, <https://w.nilu.h/lea/ltaeten/r/nsti ute/v/doWP04-13·VELVASAI.pd>. 72 oFI, Rodopi, 149/2002. 3 Yannis K. Chala Tibunax eliiex et Droit Gree (Isanbul: Istos, 2013). 4 AP 1723/1980; CoFI, Chali� 1057/2000; CoFI, Xanhi. 127/2000; Appals Cot of hrace, 356/1995. 176 177 Yisel Sezin Rorming Muslim amily Laws inclusion of Greek citens of Muslm reliion and residents of hace in he exlusive competence of he mti or ily nd nherince matters, despite he onclusion of he il maiage, l be held to nge upon her reedom of rligion ... heir celebation of cil maiage mplicily inicates heir desire not to be subject to the jurisdition of he dne Mslim law, b�t the jil law, lke oher Greek citzens.75 relaions ith Turkey.78 In the late 1990s and arly 2000s, Turish-Greek relations entered nto a new phase of detente as the European Union (EU) bgan accession negotiations ith Turky. At the same ime, ihin the context of the EU's minoriy protection policies, the Greek government lso took a number of steps to improve the socioeconomic status of Muslims in the Thrace region.79 It is diiclt to make a causal argument, et it is no surprise \hat ight around this ime, as th; presevation of Shari'a in Thrace was viewed is less of a geostrateic importance, some of he cous embraced a more assertive stance is-a-s the mtiate and Islamic law. As I pt in the seion enitled "The Court of Cassation," although they id not necessarily bein chalenging the constitutionaliy of Shari'a lw, they adopted an increasingly �esticionist approach toward muis' jurisdiction. In many cases thy either �eused to recogze mutis' jurisdiction or declared it concurrent with civil courts. For instance, in 2001, the Appeas Cout of Thrace led that the s�ting of parent-child commniaions was not ithin the jurisiction of the muti and el instead under the puiew of cil corts.80 The same court in 2006 also decided that spousal property rlations were exluded rom mutis' juisdition.81 In 2008-11, in a series of judgments,82 courts also rled that child custoy ( epimeleia) as no longer under the jurisdicionl competence of ms83 -oten basing their decisions on a narowed understanding of the concept of parentl authoriy goniki merimna).84 Simlarly, reional ourts It is now widly accepted hat Musims who may cily can opt out of mis' jurisdiction. But what about Musms who mary in a reiious ceremony? an hey also resort to cil courts or amily disputes that may later arise? According to the CoFI in Thiva, the answer is irmative. In a Muslim uardianship and pateity case n 2000, he court rled that he muti's jurisdition-or al personal status matters listed in Aticle 5 § 2 of aw 1920/1991-should be deemed concurent wih ordinary courts. Esply in the event that he applicaion of the "sacred" law would inringe upon basic rights protected nder the constitution and the European Convention on Hman Rights (ECHR), the court urther argued, he state was required to give the members of the religious minoriy the option to choose beween the jurisdiction of the mutrand of ordinary cil courts.76 In 2008, the CoFI n Rodopi arrived at the same conclusion and claimed jurisdiion over inheritance disputes among Muslims in the name of gender equaliy and fair rial: he jurisdictional powers of the Mi, whih ae _clear rom he leer and spiit of the Treaty of Lausanne ... wold not iolate indiidual ihts of Muslms, hih are pressly proteted both by the Constituion nd the European on­ vntion ... Acorng to he holy Msm aw (Q'n) of heritance, a le chld· reves twice he shre of a femle hld ... [We] not ovelook he provision of Atile 116 § 2 of the onsiution, whih stats inter aa hat: " ... he Sate shall ensure the elimination of inequalities in praice, patiularly aganst womn ... • [Thus], wih he aove content, [he case] is admited or tril beore his cot, which has juisiction ih rgrd to he distibuion of inheited popey ... of Greek citns of Mm riion.7 Grek cil ourts have been historilly very consevaive in their dealings with Islamic law and mutis. There is an important reason or this: the legal autonomy of the mutiate was established and guaranteed by intenaional traties M part of a minority protection regime between Turkey and Greece bsed on the principle of reciprociy. From this point of iew, questions conceing Islmic law were not just maters of egliy, but lso ave poliical conces intimately tied to security poliy, minority afairs, and bilatel 5 CoFI, Xanthi, 1623/2003. 76 oFI. ha. 405/2000; or urther iformaion, see: Tsitss, •Me Aphorme Ten Apo· phase 405/2000 Tou Monomlow Pr0toikeiou Thebon." 7 CoFl, Rodopi, 9/2008. 78 lxs lndrs, he Greek Minoriy f stanbul and Greek-Turkh Reation. 1918-194 (Ahens: Center or Asia Minor Studie� 1983); Baskin Oran, Turk-Yunan Iliskiler­ inde ai Traa Sounu (A: Miyeliler Brlii Vi, 1986). 79 Ioanis N. Grigoriadis, "On the Eropation of Minority ights Protection: Compar­ ing the Cases of Greece ind Tur,ey." editeranean Politis 1311 (2008): 23-41; ula Meni­ soiu, he Europn Uion's Mnoriy Jhts Policy and Its Impat on the Developmnt of Minoriy RihS Protetion n Greece," 2007, <http://w.ls�.ac./europeanlnstitute/research/ helleni0bsatoy/pdf/3_Symposiu/PAPES/EM!SOGWU_FULYA.p>. 0 Appals ourt of Thrace, 712001. 81 Appeals Court of hrace, 119/2006. 82 CoFI, dopi )112008, 1712008, 130/208, 10/2008, 183/208; nd CoFI,anl. 24/2011. 3 e ny oher sect of mis' jrsction, here is no onsenss mong lowr cot judges o�ceming ompetence to adjdicate custdy disputes, eiher. Despite he forem�n­ iond ngs hat reno'ed ustdy rom ms' jurisdiio, some cots contnue to reoe and ray mutis' cstody decisions. For nstance, see: CoFI, odopi, 5/2014. 4 le 5 § 2 of aw 192Q/191, hih dens mis' jon, is a eaim copy of le 10 § 1 f aw 2345/1910, h inludd dy (pia) ithin m' jiion. imelia s o employed in he CC hat applied o non-Mim s. Ho'er, aw 1329/1983, -�h romd he . pld ty (pimeia) ih a nw ld-ntd nd gndrn oncept of prenl uthory nii mimna). S.e h, the old onpt of pimeia s l� out of e d onki merimna hs bome the mam ll mewok ur rlaion of parent-hld ios iin e cil jy. s a lt some l t juds "narro' inng ie 5 § 2 of aw 1920/1991, hih sll nos pimeia (ihout due rd ur he istol volution of he conept), onsidr parn tld relaios to e outside muis' iio. oe Doudos, "ntome poe Tou matos Diiou a e Dii Se Me Tn lee nnome Tm" (Unpbhd papr, hesloni, 2009 [on le ith athor])_ Ahina masi "Okogen­ is oms s lnon Moonanon," 201, <htp/irlwp-ont/upias/29107/ 162_IKGSENNOS_SIS.pd>. 178 179 Yisel Szin Reorming Muslim Family Las also excluded inheritance rom mutis' jurisdiction, subjeting al Greek cii­ zens to the piew of the CC, regardless of religion. 85 cout has consistenly upheld muis' jurisprudence over intestate and testate succession as compulsory and categoricaly rejected Muslim cizens' riht to lave pubic lls, relying upon a patriarchal interpreation of Islamic law and neglecting local customs: 92 The Court of Cassation The basis of Islmic inhritance law s intestate succession, and "public ill" does not have he sme posiion [n Islamic law] hat it has n Roman law-based 'modem ystems. If there ae relaives, a l annol be utilized or dvolution of heritance. [he public l) solely complemens he intestate succession, "what he Prophet [no specic hadih is cited] has ordeed he aihul to do annot be altered." ... However, here are oher povisions of he Qur'an [no spcic verse is cited) ring the il to chariy ... Mums, driven by the spirit of ciy, may leae a ll n avor of hird pties up to 1/3 of their estate. Thereore, he l of a Musm is a ind of smple legay or a third pay, not hang the sas oflegl heir, or haiable and phlanhropic purposes ... Inheritance relations of Muslim Gres are goven,ecl not by he �C but by he las ofaraiz over hich he mui has jusdicionl auhoriy.93 This rising assertiveness of he courts at the local lvel sparked a backlash roin the CoC in Athens. The CoC has been historically very lenient in its decisions concening Shari'a law. As Doudos notes, "High Court judges usualy operate under arious poliical pressures. Over ime they become an xtension of the state power as they embrace the oicial poliy and increasingly relect it on their decisions."86 he oicial Greek poliy on Shai'a rle in Thrace has been in avor of presering the status quo.87 Tis oulook has been lso largely incorporated into he court's jrisprudence. For instance, in a series of judg­ ments, especially concerning inheritance issues, the court has repeatedly noteo that he application of Shari'a law in Westen hrace was an intenaionl treay obligaion; this bestowed upon Shari'a the status of a "specil law" within the domestic system.88 Given its special status, the court argued, Shari'a could not be said to contraict the constitution, the ECHR, or odre public. Although the court did not ormulate it in the sme-words as one of the local couts n Thrace, it sill signaled to lower courts that when thy were "con­ ronted with questions about Islam, they must judge them as if thy ame rom a dferent value system, not by criteria exclusive to Westen societies."89 This essentiaist perception of Islm nd Shari'a was pariclarly visible in he court's jurisprudence on Islamic inheritance law. Most Thracian Muslims do not agree ith Islamic succession rules (rom a gender equlity perspective) and bypass them by leaving notarized public wlls (dimosia diathiki).9° For instance, athers oten distibute heir inheritance equaly between their sons and daughters, even hough, under Islamic law, a male heir's inheritance would be double that of female heir. However, relatives whose interess are reatened by the public ill could al s challenge its validiy at a ciil cout t and request rtdistribution in accordance with Shari'a law. Many such cses have come beore the CoC-as the cout of last resort-over the years.9 1 The As he CoFI in Xanthi rled-n 2012,94·the applicaion of Shari'a-based famly laws, especially when people ere subjected to the jurisdiction of, the muti against their wishes, iolated Muslm citizens' consituionaly proteted sub­ stantive and procedl rihts, including equaliy beore the law (Article 4§1) and reedom of conscience (Article 13). As per Aticle 5§3 of aw 1920/1991, the CoFI is supposed to reiew the constituionality of mutis' decisios and declare them "unenorceable" if thy nd a contradiction. However, despite widespread alleged violaions,95 the CoC's policy of reating Shari'a as special law and exempting it rom constitutional riew seems to have lso inluenced nd discouraged lower courts rom conducting efective reviews of muti decisions. According to Ktistais;6 dring the period 1991-2011, three CoFis in Thrace reviewed 3,633 mui decisions,97 and struck down only one of them as unconstitutional, on the grounds hat the uneven isribution of inheritance by a muti between a male and a emale siblin g (7/21 or girl, 2 5 Apps ort of hae, 439/2005, 642/2009, 392/2011, 192/2013; oFI, Rodopi 50/2010; oFJ, Xnhi, 30/2010, 122/2002. 86 Peronl ntiew with oge Doudos, l onsel or Mate of Komoini' Komoni, Gree. Mrh 2015. '; Bn S. Tner and Bena nn Asln, "egl Plsm nd the Shri'a: A ompson of 8Gree nd Try; Sociologial Review 62/3 (2014): 439-56. AP 1370/2014, 1862/2013, 1097/2007. " Mlmmber oFI, Xni, 11/2001, itd in Kss, hala Tibanx Rliiex et roit Gree. 0 Tray Cn, unanstan'aki TUrk Azinliin Hukuki Ozerklii (Ara: Oion, 2009). " For instnce, AP 322/1960, 2113/2009, 1097/2007. na Jons-Paly ndtbr Dajni Tuqn, omen under slam: Gender, Justice and the Politis of Islamic aw (ondon: J.B. Tas, 2011). " AP 1497/2013, 1862/2013, 1097/2007, 2138/2013. o�. Xnhi, 102/2012, itd n Mria A. Bergou, "£ Ephmoge Tou Jerou Mosolma­ nkou Nomou (Sa) Sten leke Ennome Txe," 2013, ip//w.nsk.gov.r/dmens/ 15678/33709/722013.pdfle567b9a-c5e7-4a37-ac14-blaec4e4b6a>. ys Strios Kois, he Stas of Msim noiy Women in Gree: ond Oas Ero­ pn Ciens," n European Union Non-Discrimination aw and Intsectionali: Investiating the Tiane of Rada. Gender and Disabiliy Discrimination, d. Damr Shik and na (Brnton, T: shgate Publshn. 2011), pp. 125-40. ason 6 Kss, harla Tibanux Religix et roit Gree. 7 oFis in Rodopi, Xanhi, nd Orsia. 4 180 181 Yisel Szin Reorming Muslim amily Laws and 14/21 or boy) violated the constitutional prnciple of gender equality (Aicle 4§2).98 As idenced, the consiutional reiew of muis' decisions by civil courts is inefective or non-xistent. There are poliical and instituional reasons or this. Some instituionl itaions that prevent civil courts rom carring out an efective review of mutis' decisions have already been mentioned: the strong discouragement by the oC, the langnage baier, the lack of Muslm judges in cil courts, the lack of codiicaion of material and procelural rules of Islami� law, the lack of a proper Islamic court system, and he lack of oversight and appel ithin the Islamic sctor. The loose interaion of the muiate ihin the ational legal system poses addiol challenges to con­ stituional review. The act that muis are not proessionl career judges trained in civil law mkes them less susceptive to institutional constaints (i.e. the cost of deiance is very low or the mutis) and less receptive to secular concepts and rames (e.g. iberl human righs discourses). One can also add to this list he lak of tadition and historical precedents. Prior to the enactment of Law 1920/1991, mutis' decisions were not subject to constitutionl review. By the time he new law was nroduced, the issue of the mutis' appointment, duties, and jurisdiction had already rown into an intenational problem between Turkey and Greece. ,In other ords, questions concerning muis' jurisdicion were too politically sensitive or ordnay judges to hanle, as they ere direcly linked to state security, oreign poliy, and majority-minority relations. In 1990, when the Greek govement ap­ pointed two new mutis in Komoini and Xanhi, he Muslim minority protested the appointments as "unlaul" (aw 2345/1920 required eleions) and elected their own mutis. Since then, there have been two mutis in each cit: one appointed and one elected. elected muis-who cannot unction as judges-are considered by the inority as spiritual/political leaders, and by the Greek state as "Turish agents," whereas appointed mtis-who can unction s judges-are dstrusted by he minoriy as "Greek agents." Against this backdrop, challenging the consti�µonaliy of the state-appointed mutis' rulings would inevitably have political repercussions. Such court rulings cold be interpreted as a smbolic support or groups who call or the aboliion of the mutiate or separation of mutis' spiritual and judicial unctions. The Greek state seeks to void both outcomes, s they would only increase intenaional pressure (especially from Turkey) nd create trouble or the government. Fuly embracing this srategic orein poiy concern, the CoC qas efecively iscouraged local courts rom imiting muis' jurisdiction and challenging the constitutionaliy of.their decisions. Greece, a member of the Council of Europe, recognizes the jurisiction of the ECHR It means that Greek Muslims alleing violation ofECHR rihts due to appliction of Islamic law cold lodge a complaint at he Srasbourg court ater hausng domestic remedies. In some regards, the Ssbourg opion proides an addiional layer of hman rights p(otection on top of the consti­ tutional reiew mechnism put in place by Law 1920/1991. But does the ECHR ply he role that national courts ail to play in providing an efecive oversiht over Islamic Jaw and authorities in Greece? It is diicult to answer this question, as the Strasbourg option remains underutilized. To this day, oly wo cases concening the implementation of Shari'a law in Thrace have been lodged at he court. The irst case was Dilek Cigdem v.. Geece (2010).99 The applicant claimed hat her righs nder iles 8 and 14 were violated when she was denied inheritance rom her ather under Islamic law on the rounds that she had been bon out of wedlock. 100 The court rejected the appication s inadmissible due to a procedural error by the applicant. The second case as Chatitze Molla Sali v. Greece (2014). The applicant com­ planed that her rights under Articles 5, 6, and 14 had been violated due to the CoC's decision (1862/2013) to deny Muslim Greeks the riht to mke public wills, which deprived her of three-ourths of her propery. At he time of wiing, the application was still pending. If the cout rules that the original Greek decision violates the ECHR, it may have important impications or the muti system n Thrace. The ECHR requires member •states to remove legal ronds and pracices ausing iolations. 101 If the cout inds a violation in he pending case, he government could choose to respond ,by amending Article 5 of Law 1920/1991 and declaring muis' juisdicion ·concurrent ith ciil courts or al personal status matters; this cold in tur, create lateral pressure on muis to self-reorm in order to protect, their jurisdicion and clientele, jst as Shari'a courts did in the Israeli case. Thus, if suiciently ulized, the Strasbourg cout could ultimately be a source of reormist pressure on the Islamic judiciary in Thrace, a role that Greek couts have Jong ald to play. In the absence of any serious threat to their clientele or judicial monopoly, muis have not had any incentive to self-reom. On tle contrary, the poiical climate has avored their eistence and the status quo; high courts have shielded them against the lower courts' occasional incursions into heir " oFI, Rodopi, 152/1991. The CoFI remanded the ase to the mui ofKomoini or rerial The scond ruling by the mti was an exat copy of hs rst judment he only diference was hat this time he did not mention numeical shares (e.g. 7/21, 14/21), but rather used the word "correspondng shares." When the new judment s brought bak to the cout or raicaion, it was declared enforcable with no rsevation� Kis, Hios Nomos Tou Islam Kai Mousoulmanoi Hellenes Polits. 99 Dilek Cidem v. Greece (22009/10), <http://ww.stasbourgconsortium.org/portl.case. phf' ageld= I O#aseld=1212>. Appls Court of ace, 497/2009. 101 Ib rahim Ozden Kabolu and Stlianos-loannis G. Koutnatzis, The Reception Process in Greece and Turkey." in A Europe fRight: he Impact of the ECR on National Legal Systems, ed. Hlen Kler and Alec Stone weet (Oxor: ford Unvesiy Prs, 208), pp. 451-529. 182 183 Yisel Sezin Reorming Muslim amily aws jrisdiction. There ere practicly no ciil society organiations lobbying them or reorm either. In the end, he lack of top-down, laterl, or bottom­ up pressures lowed them to coninue business as usual. and atributed greater legitimacy to some of them than did their Greek counterprts. The relative success of the reorm process in Israel lso owed much to the eistence of a ibrant non-govenmental organiation (NGO) setor­ particlarly women's ihts roups. They constituted he third (bottom-up) source of pressure or qadis to undertake reoms. For instance, groups such as WGEPSI and Kayan played a pivotal role in the legislatve process in 1995-2001 that opened the door to jurisitionl competition between civil and Shari'a courts. Ater the 2001 amendment, both roups provided legal aid to Arab women in order to help hem to utilize the ciil courts. The increase in the number of people using cil courts put reater pressre on Shari'a courts to"self-reform. This bottom-up pressure, completely lacing in Greece, proved criical in the reorm in Isral, Another element that as lacng in Greece was a reorm-minded leadership at the apx of the Islamic judiciary. In comp"ari­ son to Geek mutis, Qadi Natour, the omer pesident of the SA, lS a highly efective, competent leader and a self-de�lared reormer, who spear­ headed the reorm nd renewal proces in he Shari'a system. 102 Last but not least, another major diference, between the two counries' periences was the lack of a proper Islmic judiciay in Geece. The Islamic judiciary in Isael is more closely integrated into the national system than is e muiate in Greece. In Isael, there are Shari'a courts; there re qadis; there is an SCA; and there are codiied substantive/procedural laws. None of this ists in Greece. his absence makes it vey diicult or ciil courts to efectiv.y reviw mutis' decisions and orce compliance ith ie constituion or ECHR Israeli cil cot judges enjoy et another avantage over their Greek counteparts. With the enactment of aws 1250/!982 and 1329/1983, he Greek family law system has been almost COipletely secularized. 103 Thus, Greek judges, who re oly amiliar ith secular law, oten treat Shari'a as a sui geneis law, not as an integral aspect of the national system. This ideological atitude is one of the resons why the constitutional review of mutis' decisions has been inefectve. In Israel, on the other hand,. the famly .law system is almost enirely religion-based. Religious laws and courts are an intel prt of the national system. This mkes Israeli judges, in comparison to heir Greek countepats, less biased nd moe recepive to MLs. This does not mean that israeli judges are more knowledgeable about Islamic law, but they may be more eager to treat Shari'a courts as part of the mainsream judiciay and; as a result, require them to comply with national norms and standards. In he end, Israeli cil couts hae plaed a more constructie ole han their Greek counterparts in incentizing the Islmic couts and judges to undetke COMPARISON OF ISRAELI AND GREEK E�PERIENCES, AND CONCLUDING REMARKS Civil courts and judges in non-Muslim counties annot be epected to efect direct changes in MFLs, as thy oten lack the necessary moral authority. Their efect tends to be rather indirect, by pressuring religious courts and judges to undee self-reorm. Ths ,was rue in Israel but not in Grece; Israeli ciil courts were able to induce indirect reorm (albeit limited) in Shari'a couts, whereas Greek ciil corts iled to induce any reorm n the Thracian mutiate. Israei Shari'a courts selectively and subtly compied with HCJ's rulings by intenalizing civil discourses and principles that resonated ith Islmic alues, In addition to he HCJ's top-don pressure, Shari'a courts were also under lateral pressure rom civil amily courts. Jurisdictionl competition with the latter was he driving enine of self-reorm in Shari'a courts. In his respect, the 2001 amendment law that irmly established the concurrent jurisdiction of civil courts along wih Shari'a cots ws of criical impotance. In Israel, the HCJ and civil amily courts worked in tandem. In Greece, on the other hand, this was not the case. There was neither top-don pressre by the CoC nor lateral pressre by the local CoFI. In hindsight, the role that the CoC played was hihly unconstructive-especily in comparison to the Israeli HCJ. The CoC has not only voided challening the juisdiction of mutis by requiring them to comply with the constitution , or the ECHR, it has lso efectively,barred lower cots rom putting any meaninl lateral pressure on muis to reorm. In Israel, the con�urrent jurisdiction as nteed by he law, In Greece, howver, it had to be estabihed by judicil activism, paticularly by the CoFI. The CoC has discouraged the lower couts rom plaing such a role despite heir increasing assetiveness n the early 2000s. In the absence of meaningul vertical or lateral pressure rom the ciil judiciary, mtis deied cals or reorm and reused to enact any substantive or proced­ ural changes in the Islamic law. In his respet, it shold be noted hat he cost of deiance was considerably lower or Greek mutis than or Israeli qadis. The later, who were civilly trained and maintained professional ies ith their civil counterparts, were more attentive to and dependent upon the judicil hierarchy than he ormer. Moreover, due to heir training and proessional ties, qadis were also more familiar ith and receptive to constitutional alues and certain secular rames, ha. "he llenge of Asteing Jie." Aspasia Tsaoussis-Hazis, he Greek Divorce aw Rorm f 1983 and Its Impact on Homemakes: A Sodal and Economic Analyss (Ahens: Sols Pubihers, 2003). 102 103 184 Yusel Sezin Reforming Mslim Family Laws slf-reorm and mke he appicaion of MFL n hat couny relatively more human ihts- and rule oflaw-compliant thn the Shai'a sstem n Greece. Kaboglu, Ibrahim Ozden, and Stylianos-loannis G. Koutnatzis. 2008. "The eception .Prss in Grece and Turky," in A Europe of Righs: he Impact of the EHR on ational Legal Systems, ed. Helen Kller and Alec Stone Sweet. Oford: Oford University Press, pp. 451-529. Kapl n, Yehiel S. 2012. "Enorcement of Divorce Judments in Jeish Courts in Isal: The Inteaction between eliious nd Constitutional aw," Middle East Law and Govenance 4/1: 1-68. ayan. 2011. "Five Yers of Lgal Aid: Summay nd Analysis," <htp://ww.kayan. org.il/Public/ER201 10101_5%20Y ear%20Legal%20Aid%20Report.pdf> (accessed )le 2015). Konis, Sterios. 2011. "The Satus of Mslim Minoriy Women in Grece: Second Class Eropan Ciens," in Euopean Union Non-siminaion aw and Intesctionaliy Invstigating the Triange ofRacial, Gender and Disabiliy Disriminaion, d. Damar chiek nd Anna awson. Burngton, VT: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 12540. Kotewe, Anna C., and Jennifer A. Selby. 2012. Debating Sharia: Islam, Gender ,Politis, and amily Law Arbitration. Toronto: Univesiy of Toronto Press. Kombasi, Ahina. 2001. "Oikogeneiakes Enomes Sxeseis Ellinon Mosomanon," ,, :hp://kethi.gr/p-content/upload/2009/07/162_0IKOGNE!KES_ENNOMS_ SESEIS.pd> (accessed November 2016). Kistis, Yis. 206. Hiros omos Tou slam Kai Mousoulmanoi Hellenes Polites: ·Metay Koinotsmou Kai Phileleutherismou. Ahens and Thesslonica: Edoseis Skoula. Kistkis, Yannis. 2013. Charia Tribunaux Religiex et Droit Gree. Isanbul: lstos. ayish, Aharon. 2004. he Transomation of the Shari'a rom Juriss' Law to Statu­ toy aw in he Contemporay Musm World." Die Welt ds Islams 44/1: 85-113. emer, Hauna. 2011. Making onstitutios in Deeply Divided Societies. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Prss. Masud, Mhammad halid. 1996. • Apostasy and Judicial Separation in British India," in slamic Legal Intepretation: Mutis and heir Fawas, ed. Mhmmad hlid Masud, Brinley Morris Mssick, and Daid Stephan Powers. Cambidge, MA: Havard University Press, pp. 193-203. Memisogl, Fulya. 2007. "The European Union's Minoiy Rights Policy and Its Impact on the Development of Minority ihts Protection in Greece," <http:// www.lse.ac.u/euroanlnsitute/rsarchhellenicObsevatory/pd/3rd_Symposin/ PAPS/MEMISOGLOU_FULYA.pdf> (accesed June,2015). Messik, Brley Morris. 1993. The alliraphic State Txtual Dominaion and Histoy in a Muslim Sociey. Berkely: University of Califonia Press. Nator, hmad. 2009. "The Role of he Shai'a Cout of Appals in Promotng the Status of Women in Islamic Law in a Non-Musm State (Israel)." )SD thesis, merican Universiy Washington Colege of aw. Oran, Basin. 1986. Turk-Yunan Iliskilerinde Bati Trakya Sorunu. ara: Miye­ ller Birligi Vi. Peled, Alisa Rubin. 2009. "Shri'a nder hllenge: The Political History of Islamic egl nsituions in Israel," Middle ast Jounal 63/2: 241-59. PEW Research Center. 2011. he Future f the Global Muslim Population. Washing­ ton, DC: Pew esearch Center. BIBLIOGRAPHY Alnres, Alxes. 1983. he Greek Minoriy of Istanbul and Greek-Turkish Rea­ tions, 191�-1974. Ahens: Center or Asia Minor Studies. Bergou, Maria A. 2013. "i Epharmoge Tou lerou Mousolmanikou Nomou (Saria} Sten lenke Ennome Tace," <http://ww.ns.gov.r/documens/15678/33709/ 722013.pd/fe567b9a-5e7-4a37-ac14-blaec4e4b6a> (accessed November 2016). Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. "La Force du Droit: Elements pour une Socioloie du hamp Juridique," Actes de a Recherche en Sciencs Socia/s 64: 3-19. Cin, Turgay. 2009. Yunanistan'daki urk Azinligin Hukuki Ozerkligi. Ankara: Orion. Convention on he Elimination of All Forms of Discrimnation aganst Women (CEDAW). 2007. "Concluding Coments of the Committee on he iminaion of Dsnaion aginst Women: Greee," <htp://www.isoita.r/en/ar/uploads/ Greece_%20Concluding_comments_OHE.pd> (accessed November 2016). Doudo, Gore. 209. "Syntome Episkopse Tou Systematos Dikaiou Sharia Se Dia­ leike xe Me Ten Ellenke nnome Tace." Unpblishd paper, hsloni. El-Taji, Mha T. 2008. •Aab ol Authorities in Israel: Hamulas, Naionalism nd Dilemmas of Social Change." PhD thesis, University of Washington. Goitein, Shelomo Dov, and A. Ben Shemesh. 1957. Ha-Mishpat Ha-Mslemi Bi­ Medin�t Yis;a' el. Jeusalem: Mif'al ha-shhpul; Geovilim. Godm', Josh. 2009. "Divine Judgment: Judicil Review of Religious Leal Systems in India and Israel," Hstins Intenational and Comparative Law Riew 322: 477-528. Grigoiadis, Ioaunis N. 2008. "On le Europeaion of Minority Rights Protec­ ion: Comping the ass of Geece and Turky," Mediteranean Politics 13/1: 23-41. Halperin-Kaddarl, uh. 2002. ·"xpressions of Legal Pluralism n Israel: The Inter­ action between the Hih Cout of Justi� and Rabbinical Cours in Faly Matters , and Beyond," n Jewish Famiy Law in the State of Israel, ed. M. D. A. Freeman. Binghamton, NY: Global Publications, pp. 185-244. Hrberg, homas.. 2009. "Report by ommissioner or Human Rihts of the ,Council of Europe," <htps://wcd.coe.int/wcdNiewDoc.jsplid=l409353> (accessed June 2015). Hirschi, Ran. 2004. Towars Juristocray: he Oriins and onsequencs J the New Constitutionalism. Cambridge, MA: Havard Universiy Press. Hirschi, Ran. 2010. onstitutional heocray. ambridge, MA: Havard University Press. Jacobsohn, Gary Jerey. 2000. "Ater the Revolution," Israel Law Review 34/2: 139-69. )ones-Pauly, Chistina, and Abir Dajani Tuqn. 2011. Women under Islam: Gender, Jusice and the Politis of Islamic Law. London: l.B. Tas. 185 186 Yusel Sezin amadan, Moussa Abou. 2003. "The Transition rom Tradition to Reorm: The Shari'a Appeals Court Rulings on Chld Custody (1992-2001)," Fordham Intenational Law Jounal 26: 595-655. Ramadan, Moussa Abou, 2005. "Divorce Reorm in the Shari'a Court of Appeals in Israel (1992-2003)," slamic Law and Society 13/2: 42-74. Ramadan, Moussa Abou. 2005-6. "The Shari'a n Israel: lslamiation, lsraelzation and the Invened Islamic aw," UCA ournal of Islamc and Near Esten aw 5: 81-129. amaan, Moussa Abou. 2008a. "Hitpahthhoiut Ahronot Be-ahzaqat Yeladim Be-Batei Ha-Dn Ha-Sharayim; Be'iqvoth Bagatz 9740/05 Plonit n. Beit Ha-Dn Ha-Sharai Le-lr'uriom, Bagatz 1129/06 Plonit ve-Ahi n. Ha-Din Ha-Sharai Le­ Ir'uriom," Mishpacha Be'Mishpat 2: 69-105. Ramadan, Moussa Abou. 2008b. "Notes on he Anomaly of the 'Shari'a' Field in Israel," Islamic aw and Sociey 15/1: 84-111. Ramadan, Moussa Abou. 2010. "he Recent Developments in Custody Law or Muslims in Israel: Gender and Religion," Journal of Women f the Middle East and the Islamic World 8: 274-316. Ramadan, Moussa Abou. 2015. "Islamic Legal Hybridity and Patriarchl Liberism in he Shari'a Courts in Israel," Jounal of Levanine Studies 4/2: 39-67. Reiter, Yitzhk. 1997. "Qadis and the Implementaion of Islamic Law in Present Day Israel," in Islamic Law: heoy and Practice, ed. R. Gleae and E. Kermeli. London: I.B. Tauris, pp. 205-31. Sapir, Gideon. 2009. "Consiutionl Rvoluions: Israel as a Case-Study," Intenation­ al Jounal fLaw in Contt 5/4: 355-78. Sconicov, Anat. 2006. "Religious Law, Religious Courts and Human Rihts wihin Israeli Constitutionl Structure," Intenational ounal of Constiutional Law 4/4: 732-40. Segin, Yel. 2010, "The Israeli Millet System: Exaining Lel Pluralism hrough Lenses of Nation-Bldng and Hman ights," Israel Law Review 43/3: 631-54. Sezgin, Ysel. 2013. Human Rghts under Sate-Enorced Religious Family Laws in Israel, Eypt and India. Cambridge: ambridge Universiy Press. Sezn, Yksel. 2014. "Hw Non-Muslm Democracies Engage Shari'a: Lessons or Democraizing Muslim Nations." Meeting of the American Politial Science Association, August 30. l" Sezgin, Yksel, and Mijam Kinkler. 2014. "Regulation of 'Religion' and the 'Reli­ ious': The Politics ofJudicialiation and Bureaucratzation in India nd Indonesia," Comparaive Studis in Sociey and Hisoy 56/2: 1-3 I. Shahar, !do. 2007. "Legal Reorm, Interpretive Communiies and the Qust• or Legitmacy: A ontetul Analysis of a Legl Circular," in Law, Custom, and Statute in the Muslim World: Studis in Honor ofAharon Layish, ed. Ron Shaham. Leiden: Brl, 2007, pp. 199-228. Tsaoussis-Hatzis, Aspasia. 2003. The Greek Divorce Law Rom of 1983 and Its Impact on Homemakes: A Social and Economic Analyss. Athens: Sakkoulas Publishers. Tsitselikis, Konstantinos. 2001. "Me Aphorme Ten Apophase 405/2000 Tou Mono­ melous Protodikeiou hebon," omiko Vima 49: 583-93, Rorming Musim amily Laws 187 Tsitselikis, Konstantnos. 2012. Od and Nw slam in Greece: Prom Hstorical Minor­ itis to Immirant Newomes, Studies in Intenational Minoriy and Group Righs. Leiden: Mainus Nijhof. he Shari'a: Tuner, Bran S., and Berna engin Arsln. 2014. "Legal Pluralism and A Comparison of Greece and Turey," Socioloical Review 62/3: 439-56. and in Velvasaki, Eleni. 2013. "Operating Reliious Minoriy Legal Orders in Greece Shari'a Islamic the and i ,he UK: A Comparison of the Muti Oice in Komotin / Council in London," <htps://ww.unilu.h/ileadmii/fakultaeten/rf/instiute/zv 2015). Jne do/WP04-13-VELNASAKI.pdf> (accessed in the Woods, Patricia J. 2008. Judicial Power and ational Poitis: Courts and Gender Press. SY Y: lbany, Isa l. e Reliious-Secular Conlict in on. Zahalka, Iyad. 2008. AI-Mushidi AI-Qada' Al-Shar'i. Tel Aviv: Isral Bar Associai Minoity Islamic an to Justice tering Adminis of e Chleng Zahala, Iyad. 2012. "The e Living in a Non-Molm State: The Shari'a Cours in Israel," Journal of Levanin Studies 2/2: 151-73. tim Zahaa, Iyad. 2014. Shari'Ah Ba- 'dan a-Modeni: Ha-Halakhah La-Mi'U Ha-Muslemiyim. Tel Aviv: Resling .