We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Too often, Western encounters with the Islamic world commence with stereotypes and end with a renewed distance. Drawing from decades of experience studying the Muslim world, Lawrence Rosen challenges these narrow understandings. Adopting an interdisciplinary approach, Rosen shows the wide-ranging significance of Muslim art, culture, and law around the world. Exploring political, economic, and social encounters within and with the Muslim world across the eras, he considers a wide range of contexts – from fifteenth-century mosaics in Central Asia that reveal a complex understanding of mathematics, to the political choices available to the youth of modern-day Morocco and Cairo. With in-depth analyses of art, law, and religion, and how they informed one another, Rosen develops a vibrant, nuanced portrait of the Islamic world. Drawing linkages across time, regions, and cultures, this is a significant anthropological study of the Islamic world from a seasoned scholar.
To speak of “the rule of law” in many of the Muslim countries of the world at present may seem, not only to Westerners but to many citizens of the Islamic world, at best hypocritical and at worst a cruel joke. How, after all, can one speak of the rule of law when a woman may be killed for a marriage not approved by her father or brother, when a constitution can be changed at the whim of a ruler, or when corruption is so pervasive as to leave much of the citizenry feeling dirtied and disaffected? And yet the rule of law remains more than an ideal, more than a vague concept, and more than a useless analytic concept employed only by academic lawyers. For if we try to understand the rule of law not as a universal concept but for what it means in the context of any particular cultural tradition and its system of law, it may be possible to discern features that are not incompatible with the sense in which this phrase is commonly employed.
In this brief reconsideration of the roles experts may play in legal proceedings - and concentrating on the role of social scientists in particular - it may, therefore, be useful to revisit some very familiar issues and to address some seemingly peripheral matters that are nevertheless quite central to the way we think about the involvement of experts in legal cases. For purposes of introducing some of these issues it may be helpful to focus on three interrelated concerns: the ascertaining of expert qualifications, the role of evidentiary procedure, and the extra-judicial use of social information.
Anthropology is a schizophrenic discipline. Often riven by mutually excluding factions and orientations – sometimes embodied in rival sub-disciplines, sometimes displayed over the course of a single individual’s career – the main fault line commonly separates claims of cultural uniqueness from claims to the discovery of universal features of human social and conceptual life. To some the question is not unlike that posed in philosophy and other disciplines: are human communities so incommensurable as to frustrate any useful generalizations, or may one overcome this seeming diversity by the discovery of deeper structures and principles that demonstrate unity at the level from which variation is itself generated? From the side of the particularists comes the claim that such generalizations are either trivial or untrue; from the side of the universalists comes a set of theories – functionalist, structuralist, evolutionary – each of which may claim total explanatory power. Whether the particular domain for pursuing this debate lies in a sub-field of the economic, the familial, the political, or the religious, the capacity of the ideas generated in one domain to contribute to the broader issues raised in the discipline as a whole are, notwithstanding the more exaggerated claims, often simultaneously significant and limited. Nowhere is this truer than in the contributions of anthropology to the study of law.
It is one of the central paradoxes of any legal system that it should appear at once so central to the imposition of decisive pronouncements aimed at the very structure of social relationships yet remain dependent on forces beyond its direct control for the acceptance and implementation of these strictures. This peculiar status of laws and legal institutions gives rise both to exaggerated claims for its impact on social change and equally unrealistic assertions that all legal systems merely follow and support processes whose fundamental operations are carried out in the broader spheres of social and political life. Like other institutions, a legal system performs distinctive tasks in accord with its own internal history and logic. But in its very design and operation it is deeply influenced by the struggles for control and influence that occur among its own personnel, and between them and other sectors of society. Being neither self-executing nor independently defined, statutory propositions and judicial opinions have impacts which are as difficult to trace in detail as they are wide-ranging and interconnected at large. Even in societies with elaborated and sharply delineated legal institutions, the role of the legal system in shaping or reflecting social and political patterns partakes of this confusion of distinctiveness and derivativeness.
Proceedings of the Doha Conference of ‘Ulama on Islam and Cultural Heritage. Doha, Qatar. December 30–31, 2001. Pp. 73 in English and Arabic each. New York: UNESCO, 2005.
On February 26, 2001, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan ordered the destruction of “all statues and non-Islamic shrines” in the country. In March the ministers of culture and finance destroyed 2750 of the nation's art treasures; after a month of intensive shelling, the Taliban government obliterated the statues of the Buddha in Bamiyan. At the end of December 2001, a conference of Islamic legal scholars (‘ulama) was convened on the subject of cultural heritage at Doha, Qatar. In between, of course, came the September 11, 2001, attacks (9/11).
Although a great deal has changed in the years since the 1900 Paris Congress, a significant number of issues have remained constant for students of comparative law. When our predecessors convened at the turn of the last century, they were very much in the throes of a kind of scientism that coloured what they foresaw for their subject of study and, indeed, for the future of law itself. Their evolutionary orientation, their assumption that legal systems would become more universally alike, their continuing belief in the science of law as both a method for unbiased analysis and the discovery of the classifiable nature of all legal systems may seem both naive and self-deceptive from our current stance. But it says much about the difficulties that will have to be faced by future contributors that a good deal of comparative law still remains bound to the programmes and assumptions of that earlier era. By beginning with some of the laments – and some of the grounds for lamentation – my intention is not to be gratuitously insulting. Rather, I think it important to underscore that, as heirs to certain issues and approaches, comparatists have not entirely shaken free from some of their less defensible earlier positions.
There are, for example, the continuing complaints about the state of the art – ‘scholars crocheting with rules’ – and the articulation of remarkably imprecise and old-fashioned legal taxonomies, ranging from indefensible categories like ‘traditional’ law, unexamined ones like ‘religious’ law and simply resigned ones like my own favourite, ‘other’ conceptions of law.
The introduction of the Uniform Crime Reporting system (UCR) in 1930 remains one of the most important events in the history of criminal statistics in the United States. Based on local police reports, it is the oldest extant national crime data system in the United States, with the possible exception of prison statistics. It continues to be a vitally important data system because of its extensive use by scholars, social critics, governmental organizations and the media, and as such it has made a major contribution to our understanding of crime in the United States in the last half century. The UCR has also had its share of controversy, involving not only scientific issues of validity and reliability, but the possibility of covert agendas on the part of the police and the FBI to foster an image of effective law enforcement. Despite its importance and controversial nature there is no single objective and definitive written history documenting the beginnings of the UCR. That which exists tends to be brief and superficial, and at times even ideologically biased (Leonard 1954; Maltz 1977; Sherman et al. 1982; Thompson 1968; U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation 1940).
Gamma irradiation is used to sterilize products intended for ophthalmic and parenteral use. Ideally, the sterilization process should not affect the chemical identity or physical properties of the product. We have investigated the effects of gamma irradiation on the structure and molecular weight of hydroxypropyl cellulose (HPC), and the subsequent effect on dissolution behavior of HPC. Hydroxypropyl cellulose is a commonly used excipient in pharmaceutical formulations and tablet coatings, and can be used to manufacture water soluble objects. We find that the moisture content of the HPC influences the extent to which scission and cross-linking reactions occur. At low moisture levels (<5 wt.%), cross-linking is relatively unimportant, while above 12 wt. % moisture cross-linking becomes extensive leading to formation of insoluble, rubber-like gels.