The discussion of legal pluralism focuses on the coexistence of several legal systems, mainly religious and civil ones. But what happens when a process of assimilation—whether imposed or voluntary—characterizes the relationships between the systems? This article analyzes the fascinating process of assimilation of civil principles into religious law in the context of Jewish law and Israeli civil family law. Assimilation, as the article shows, is not the whole picture. The article reveals a corresponding (both open and implicit) struggle for the preservation of religious law principles despite the continuing efforts of civil law for their curtailment, or sometimes, elimination. The result, which is somewhat internally contradictory, suggests a normative pluralistic framework that enables both regimes—the civil and the religious—to preserve their core principles in family law matters.

This article presents a comparative anthropological approach to studying the bureaucratization of Islam in contemporary Southeast Asia. In line with this approach, the article understands the bureaucratization of Islam not simply as a formalization, expansion, and diversification of Islamic institutions and legal frameworks; rather, bureaucratization is investigated as a social phenomenon that transcends its organizational boundaries and informs dynamics of socio-legal change alongside transformations of the meaning(s) of Islam in state and society. The article centers the state's “classificatory power” and its societal coproduction and contestation, and it takes both functional and hermeneutic modes of analysis into consideration. While the bureaucratization of Islam is always embedded in and shaped by power-political constellations, it simultaneously produces social and doctrinal meanings that are unique to its locally specific discursive arenas. Therefore, more conventional functional perspectives on bureaucratic Islam can be beneficially enriched by a more hermeneutically oriented anthropological analysis, as the article illustrates, based on ethnographic data gathered in Brunei and Singapore.

The article first introduces the anthropology of bureaucracy and elaborates on the absence of such studies on state-Islam relations in Southeast Asia, as well as the potential of bringing these streams of scholarship into a fruitful dialogue. Second, it presents the Bruneian case study, focusing on postcolonial Islamization policies, the bureaucratization of a national ideology, legal reforms, and their workings on the microlevel. Third, it moves on to a regional comparison, by illustrating how Islamic knowledge and meaning-production inherent to the bureaucratization of Islam unfolds quite differently in Singapore, despite partly overlapping functional patterns. While anchored in Brunei and Singapore, the article offers a conceptual framework and analytic vocabulary for a wider study across and potentially beyond the region.

The way in which Islamic courts and laws are developed and how religious legal apparatuses shape the relations between—and within—religious communities has been a common source of debate among scholars. This article analyzes the growing institutional power and authority of Islamic courts and judges in Malaysia since the late 1980s to contribute to this theoretical debate. Specifically, it compares two critical phases of institutional development of Islamic courts in Malaysia's largely secular judicial system: the first under the premiership of Mahathir Mohamad before the dismissal of his deputy, Anwar Ibrahim (1980–1998), and the second under the post-reformasi (reform) period (1999–present). Original data gathered at the Jabatan Kehakiman Syariah Malaysia (Department of Syariah Judiciary Malaysia) and other government and legal agencies, fieldwork, and semistructured interviews with Islamic and civil court officials both at the federal and state levels document the institutional expansion and administrative independence that the Islamic courts and judges have successively gained in relation to their civil counterparts. It is argued that the gradual bureaucratization of Islamic courts can best be explained with reference to the interests—and strategic coalitions—of political and religious elites within the majority community to sustain a dominant regime and majoritarian rule based on communal identity.

Indonesia's national ulama council, the Majelis Ulama Indonesia, or MUI, has successfully transformed itself during the reform era reversing its earlier relationship with government. It is the MUI that now sets the agenda on appropriate ways to recognize, protect, and promote the majority faith. However it does not operate entirely separate to the state, indeed, there are numerous points of contact and mutual dependence between this group of Islamic scholars and state agencies.

This article offers two case studies on religious freedom demonstrating different aspects of the MUI's self-appointed role of national mufti. The first case study demonstrates how the MUI has taken control of the high ground of religious doctrine. Through its response to blasphemy cases and deviant Muslim activities the MUI defines appropriate, orthodox Muslim conduct. The second case study deals with the revised regime of halal food certification. Here the state has sought to bring the MUI back into its embrace, partly as a result of corruption scandals. In doing so, however, Islam continues to be further entrenched in state law and regulation.

Indonesian Islam was said to be deconfessionalized, reflecting the nature of the former authoritarian and bureaucratic state's engagement with various Islamic institutions. The changing role of the MUI demonstrates that the state and law are becoming increasingly confessionalized. This change has significant implications for Indonesia's democratic constitutional framework, evident in what these cases say about the enjoyment of the fundamental right of citizenship.

The phenomenon of “secret” (siri) Muslim marriages—marriages that are conducted without state recognition—has become a hotly debated topic in Indonesia, particularly since the emergence of Muslim marriage agencies that organize unregistered online marriages. The issue is particularly contested between the state, women's activists, legal activists, and religious leaders. This article analyses the current efforts of the Indonesian state to bureaucratize Muslim marriages by insisting that unregistered marriages need to be registered with the state, and the societal responses to such regulations. Those who believe in the importance of state registration of Muslim marriage emphasize that it is an integral part of social reform. However, it has also been seen as creating problems when it only serves the interests of the majority and stands in the way of minority religious understandings, particularly by some conservative Muslims who believe that marriages within the Muslim community should be regulated by Muslim leaders (ʿulamāʾ) only, and not the state. This article argues that unregistered marriage has been the real test of the bureaucratization of religion in Indonesia. The government's effort to demonstrate its Islamic credentials by accommodating the people's majority religion has led it to assume an ambiguous position on the issue of unregistered marriages.