商品詳細

How do people justify what others see as transgression? Taking that question to the Persian-Muslim and Latin-Christian worlds over the period 1200 to 1700, this book shows that people in both worlds invested considerable energy in worrying, debating, and writing about proscribed practices. It compares how people in those two regions came to terms with the proscriptions of sodomy, idolatry, and usury. Historians often speak of the gap between the legal theory and premodern practice, but tend to ignore the myriad justifications that filled this gap. Moreover, a focus on justification evens out many of the alleged contrasts between the Muslim and Christian worlds. The similarities outweigh the differences in the ways people in both world regions came to terms with the various rules of divine law and the willingness of the theologians and jurists in charge of divine law to accept narrow definitions as well as circumventions varied more by the topic than by the region. Both regions also saw the development of ever more sophisticated justifications. Amid the increasing complexity of justifications, a particular kind of reasoning about rules emerged: that good outcomes are more important than upholding rules for their own sake.