Communities of Dialogue Russian and Ukrainian Émigrés in Modernist Prague

Repository | Series | Book | Chapter

210479

Why and how political liberals need to persuade muslims

ferrara and march's interpretations of conjecture

Meysam Badamchi

pp. 41-62

Abstract

In this chapter I explore the potentials of the Rawlsian idea of conjecture for presenting a native theory of political liberalism for post-Islamist Muslim-majority societies. Although this Rawlsian idea can play a key role in uniting political liberalism and post-Islamism into one coherent project, it has been almost completely neglected in the existing post-Islamism literature. While Rawls's own treatment of conjecture was very brief, Ferrara and March have independently extended this idea to demonstrate politically liberal discourse's ability to accommodate the concerns of highly conservative religious groups in affirming democratic hyperpluralism (Ferrara) or liberal citizenship (March). Both authors view conjecture as a particular justificatory tool to overcome moral conflict between liberal values and any comprehensive religious or secular doctrine, especially Islam. The chapter ends with a discussion on Soroush, Shabestari and Kadivar's possible critical reactions to March's Treatment of Islamic Jurisprudence.

Publication details

Published in:

Badamchi Meysam (2017) Post-islamist political theory: iranian intellectuals and political liberalism in dialogue. Dordrecht, Springer.

Pages: 41-62

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-59492-7_3

Full citation:

Badamchi Meysam (2017) Why and how political liberals need to persuade muslims: ferrara and march's interpretations of conjecture, In: Post-islamist political theory, Dordrecht, Springer, 41–62.