How can vulnerable parties, such as minorities and women, best be protected during religious arbitration within the Islamic tradition? Should parties be informed of their legal rights under American law or their rights within their religious tradition? For Rabea Benhalim, the answer is a balance of both.

In today’s episode of Interactions, we hear from Benhalim and her Canopy Forum article, “Limiting Oppression: Duress and Unconscionability in Islamic Law”.

In her article, Benhalim explains that vulnerable parties will be better protected if they have a dual understanding of their rights under both their religious legal tradition and American law.

While "anti-Shariah movements tend to assume that Islamic law will provide inferior protections to vulnerable parties," Benhalim writes, this simply isn't the case: "Islamic law in fact often provides stronger protections, especially as Islamic law prioritizes the subjective experience of a coerced party and strictly limits financial exploitation."

Read the original article on Canopy Forum.

Browse our book brochure.