Legal pluralism and the Shari'a: a comparison of Greece and Turkey

Abstract

The creation of a national and unified legal system was an important aspect of the rise of the modern state and national citizenship. However, this interpretation of legal rationalization has been challenged by sociologists of law such as Eugene Ehrlich (1862–1922) who claimed that this juridical theory of state-centred law masked the presence of customary laws outside this formal system. In critical theories of the law, legal pluralism is proposed against the idea of legal sovereignty or legal centralism. In this article we explore the implications of the growth of the Shari'a as an example of legal pluralism. We take Turkey and Greece as two interesting but different examples of legal pluralism and consider the implications of these case studies for debates about liberalism, multiculturalism and citizenship in multi-faith societies.