http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-2.xsd
Some argue that Muslims have no tradition of separation of church and state and therefore can't participate in secular, pluralist society. At the other extreme, some Muslims argue that it is the duty of all believers to resist western forms of government and to impose Islamic law. Andrew F. March demonstrates that there are very strong and authentically Islamic arguments for accepting the demands of citizenship in a liberal democracy, many of them found even in medieval works of Islamic jurisprudence. In fact, he shows, it is precisely the fact that Rawlsian political liberalism makes no claim.
Introduction: Moral Conflict, Political Liberalism, and Islamic Ethics ---- Part I. Justificatory Comparative Political Theory: The Search for Overlapping Consensus through "Conjecture". 1. Purposes: The Place of Justificatory Comparative Political Theory --- 2. Methods: The Ethics of Comparative Ethics ---- Part II. Islam and Liberal Citizenship: Patterns of Moral Disagreement and Principled Reconciliation. 3. Islamic Objections to Citizenship in Non-Muslim Liberal Democracies --- 4. Identifying Equilibrium: An Ideal-Typical Islamic Doctrine of Citizenship ---- Part III. Islamic Affirmations of Liberal Citizenship. 5. Residence in a Non-Muslim State --- 6. Loyalty to a Non-Muslim State --- 7. Recognition of Non-Muslims and Moral Pluralism --- 8. Solidarity with Non-Muslims ---- Conclusion: Tradition and Creativity in Grounding Moral Obligation to Non-Muslims.
Includes bibliographical references (pages 325-335) and index.
Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, ©2009