A #WomanQuestion thread about Brill's prestigious & long-running Studies Islamic Law & Society series. I'm looking at stats as I attempt to understad how gendered (& racialized) hierarchies of prestige operate to construct subfields w/in Islamic Studies

From its first in 1996 (Sherman Jackson on al-Qarafi) to its most recent in 2020 (Rudolph Peters' essays on Egyptian & Islamic law), the series includes 41 monographs & 10 edited volumes, of which 3 are festschriften.
Of the 41 monographs published over 25 years, 5 (12%) are by women. The first was Miriam Hoexter (#6 in the series), in 1998. https://t.co/NRtsclC1Gt
The next, the still-regnant study of maslaha by Felicitas Opwis, was published a dozen years & two dozen titles later (#31). https://t.co/N7Bn3ElIex
There was far less of a break before Sabrina Joseph's monograph exploring Hanafi regulation of tenants & sharecroppers in 17th-19th C Syria https://t.co/Mm7F60DytH
Carolyn Baugh's study of minor marriage (#41) is essential reading for those interested in the complex issues at play in the early legal tradition https://t.co/CriIrpjjWp
Finally, there's Lena Larsen's terrific How Muftis Think (#44), my overdue-but-in-progress review of which also considers Ron Shaham's book on Qaradawi's fiqh (#45) https://t.co/ccFLaAyFfW
Anyway, it's pretty clear that women are publishing an increasing proportion of work in the series: 1/27 monographs published between 1996-2007 but 4/14 from 2010-2020 (there were no publications in 2008 or 2009).
What about the ten edited volumes? Well, I'm still tallying up results but I expect the general trends I've noted in other work to hold: improvement in gender balance over time but gender of editors makes perhaps the most substantial difference.
If we take only the three anthologies published in 2018 & 2019, the two edited by a woman or a mixed-gender team have 30-50% substantive chapters by women. The volume edited by men has 0%. A manthology in the strictest sense of the term! Its contributors: https://t.co/5amPd7eeZO
Also, perhaps, worth noting that of the three festschrifts in the series (#28, #37, #42), all honor men. I'm shocked, I tell you.

More from Law

We need to talk about the 'expert' witness statement evidence led by Ms Bell in her successful case before the Tavistock. THREAD

You can see who gave evidence in her support from these extracts from the Tavistock's Skeleton Argument.


Helpful for you to bear in mind that her solicitor was a man called Paul Conrathe, who has a long association with the religious right in the US (I have talked about him a number of times but this is as good a starting point as any).


I am not going to address here other criticisms that might be made of the form in which that evidence was given or the timing of its service before the court. I am just going to address, in alphabetical order, the individuals whose evidence Mr Conrathe led on Ms Bell's behalf.

The first witness, alphabetically, was Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Oxford, Michael Biggs.

Mr Biggs was exposed for posting transphobic statements online under a fake twitter handle: @MrHenryWimbush according to this report.
1/ After a good night's sleep, I have a few thoughts on the impending Ripple lawsuit.

Less schadenfreude, more "what now?" https://t.co/a0oTwblBHB


2/ First of all, the USG is going to lose.

I don't even need to read the complaint. They might force a settlement, but they're outclassed on legal.

Remember Ripple engaged former SEC Chair Mary Jo White in a civil matter in 2018. A hint of their

3/ Second, the USG should lose.

The SEC restrictions on non-accredited investors; the ridiculous Howey test; 80 year old securities law like the "40 Act" all need to die in fire. They are un-American and completely outdated.

I hope Ripple wins. (WUT?)

4/ Third, it's incumbent upon industry to self-police and hold the moral high ground.

I give certain individuals A's and others F's, but as a whole, the most powerful people and companies generally take a Swiss neutrality stance on assets.

So we're effectively in this together.

5/ We're "in this together" to draw lines of regulatory demarcation.

XRP as a "security" further hurts the U.S. businesses while global comps will continue to make these markets.

XRP as a security also means other assets will meet the same fate. At least Ripple has $ to fight.
Pretty much every professional field EXCEPT police have clear, rigorous, transparent consequences for unethical behavior, negligence and malpractice.


The idea that we can "disbar" lawyers but not police is absolute foolishness.

All the factors that make disbarment a necessary tool for lawyers apply to cops... except that cops don't need to be qualified in the first place.

It is a rank absurdity of the criminal justice system that one needs to be educated and certified with a degree in order to argue on behalf of someone's life in court, but to have no qualifications necessary to detain, assault, or prematurely end that same life.

There are countless circumstances in which a lawyer's unethical behavior will result in them not only losing their job but never being able to practice it again.

But corrupt and murderous cops can be rehired indefinitely.

A lawyer's entire career can be ended forever if they were found to have knowingly put someone on a stand to lie.

Police officers however are allowed to lie in court on the stand under oath.

So much that lawyers aren't penalized for putting cops on the stand to lie.

You May Also Like