15 research outputs found
Like a Prayer? Applying Conflicts with Religious Dimensions Theory to the Muezzin Law Conflict
What is the nature of the dispute around an Israeli law that proposes restricting how Muslim followers are called for prayer? And, why does the nature of this dispute hold any importance? LeBaron and Senbel have developed a theory differentiating conflicts with religious dimensions (CRDs) from other types of conflicts. The importance of this distinction stems from and highlights the unique role that religion plays in conflicts, which liberal, rational, and individualistic orientations to conflict management fail to address.
This article offers a trial run of LeBaron and Senbelâs innovative theoretical framework. We apply CRD theory to conduct an analysis of a legislative attempt to amend an environmental law in Israel. The proposed amendment would limit the use of public address (PA) systems to amplify the Mouzinsâ calls for prayer. Proposed limitations on this Islamic practice triggered a public outcry and a sharp societal dispute in Israel. The analysis in this article exposes the real conflict over the proposed amendment to be a CRD, rather than what it seemed on its face: an environmental regulation conflict. This article also contributes to further developing CRD theory. We elaborate on the combined effects of the conflictâs intensity, its duration, and the proximity of its subject to the core values of a religion. We suggest that identifying the unique amalgam of these aspects in a CRD is important to its effective management
Recommended from our members
When "Allahu Akbar" Becomes a Crime: The Israeli Case
This Article examines the constitutionality of an Israeli bill that criminalizes the use of PA systems in prayer houses, punishable by a fine of 5000â10,000 NIS (the Muezzin Law). Â The Bill was presented to the Israeli Parliament (the Knesset) as a religiously-neutral environmental law. Â This Article asserts that a careful reading of the Billâs language reveals that it is specifically tailored to apply precisely to Muslim prayer houses, thus criminalizing the Muslim call for prayer (the adhan), especially the call occurring between dawn and sunrise (the Fajer
adhan). Â As such, we perceive the Muezzin law as violating the right to equality and the right to dignity of the Muslim minority in Israel, as well as infringing upon its religious feelings. Â Additionally, we contend that the Muezzin Law is not truly driven by environmental concern, but rather that it represents a conflict with religious dimension (a CRD)ânamely, the perception that the adhan, as a Muslim symbol, poses a threat to the identity of Jews in Israel. Â Examining the constitutionality of the Muezzin Law introduces a crucial question relating to the interplay between constitutional law and criminal law. Â Our assertion is that in any constitutional democracy, in order for the legislature to validly classify conduct as a crime, such criminalization must befit the values of constitutional democracy, serve a proper purpose, and be proportionate. Â The requirement for proportionality consists of three subtests: (a) the rational connection test; (b) the necessity test; and (c) the balancing benefits test. Â It is our contention that the Muezzin Law comprises an unconstitutional criminalization of the Fajer
adhan.  It stands in contrast with the basic values of constitutional democracy, primarily that of tolerance towards a religious minority, particularly, the Muslim community. Additionally, we assert that the Muezzin Lawâs purpose is improper as it aims at infringing upon the religious feelings of the Muslim minority in Israel, holding that the value of protecting religious feelings is a constitutional value.  Finally, we view such criminalization as provided in the Muezzin Law as being unproportionate.  In this latter regard, we hold the view that our CRD analysis provides a more delicate, proper, and proportionate solution to the question at stake
Recommended from our members
When "Allahu Akbar" Becomes a Crime: The Israeli Case
This Article examines the constitutionality of an Israeli bill that criminalizes the use of PA systems in prayer houses, punishable by a fine of 5000â10,000 NIS (the Muezzin Law). Â The Bill was presented to the Israeli Parliament (the Knesset) as a religiously-neutral environmental law. Â This Article asserts that a careful reading of the Billâs language reveals that it is specifically tailored to apply precisely to Muslim prayer houses, thus criminalizing the Muslim call for prayer (the adhan), especially the call occurring between dawn and sunrise (the Fajer
adhan). Â As such, we perceive the Muezzin law as violating the right to equality and the right to dignity of the Muslim minority in Israel, as well as infringing upon its religious feelings. Â Additionally, we contend that the Muezzin Law is not truly driven by environmental concern, but rather that it represents a conflict with religious dimension (a CRD)ânamely, the perception that the adhan, as a Muslim symbol, poses a threat to the identity of Jews in Israel. Â Examining the constitutionality of the Muezzin Law introduces a crucial question relating to the interplay between constitutional law and criminal law. Â Our assertion is that in any constitutional democracy, in order for the legislature to validly classify conduct as a crime, such criminalization must befit the values of constitutional democracy, serve a proper purpose, and be proportionate. Â The requirement for proportionality consists of three subtests: (a) the rational connection test; (b) the necessity test; and (c) the balancing benefits test. Â It is our contention that the Muezzin Law comprises an unconstitutional criminalization of the Fajer
adhan.  It stands in contrast with the basic values of constitutional democracy, primarily that of tolerance towards a religious minority, particularly, the Muslim community. Additionally, we assert that the Muezzin Lawâs purpose is improper as it aims at infringing upon the religious feelings of the Muslim minority in Israel, holding that the value of protecting religious feelings is a constitutional value.  Finally, we view such criminalization as provided in the Muezzin Law as being unproportionate.  In this latter regard, we hold the view that our CRD analysis provides a more delicate, proper, and proportionate solution to the question at stake