Two major judgments of the Indian Supreme Court that awarded Muslim women alimony had very different consequences: Shah Bano (1985) evoked extensive conservative Muslim protest that led to legislation meant to limit alimony among Muslims, while Danial Latifi (2001) faced no overt opposition and was not overturned. These consequences were related to the sources and modes of reasoning used. Shah Bano independently interpreted Qurʾanic verses, suggested that commonly applicable laws may override religious law provisions, and called for uniform family laws. Danial Latifi relied solely on statutes of Indian Muslim law and Islamic norms. It thus followed the Indian state’s usual approach to personal law, which is sensitive to public preference that family life should be regulated according to religious and other cultural norms. However, public opinion provided support to change Muslim law earlier than the 1970s. More extensive changes could be introduced over the next decade in Muslim law based on Islamic norms and Muslim opinion.

中文翻译：

---

伊斯兰规范、普通法和法律推理：穆斯林属人法和印度离婚的经济后果


印度最高法院判给穆斯林妇女赡养费的两项主要判决产生了截然不同的后果：Shah Bano (1985) 引发了广泛的保守穆斯林抗议，导致立法旨在限制穆斯林之间的赡养费，而 Danial Latifi (2001) 没有面临公开反对和没有被推翻。这些后果与所使用的推理来源和模式有关。沙阿巴诺独立解释古兰经经文，建议普遍适用的法律可能凌驾于宗教法律条款之上，并呼吁制定统一的家庭法。Danial Latifi 完全依赖于印度穆斯林法律和伊斯兰规范的成文。因此，它遵循了印度国家对属人法的惯常做法，这种做法对公众的偏好很敏感，即家庭生活应根据宗教和其他文化规范进行管理。然而，早在 1970 年代，公众舆论就支持修改穆斯林法律。未来十年，基于伊斯兰规范和穆斯林观点的穆斯林法律可能会发生更广泛的变化。