Power, while fundamental to sociality, might be exercised with haphazard ferocity or more judiciously in legally constrained ways. Such constraint requires us first to understand how ruling paradigms work, and the effects of their powers, before entertaining suitable forms of legal limitation. Transposing Kuhn’s famous concept, this paper examines a ruling paradigm of biopolitical sovereignty at the Cape of Good Hope through two examples: the 1891 census’ racialized categorizations of the “population”; and a racialized segregation responding to the 1901 bubonic plague. Prefiguring apartheid, both examples indicate how colonial laws authorized discretionary biopowers and yet exempted themselves from monitoring how officials demarcated and governed racialized population groups. The paper touches on the growing maladroitness of positivist ideas about a sovereign “rule of law” in regulating arbitrary biopolitical forces. It concludes by briefly indicating the promise of legal pluralism and Indigenous legalities to check capricious biopowers while pursuing legitimate life-affirming forces.

The Islamic legal enterprise forms an inherently plural system that can appear puzzling to commentators looking for faithfulness to principle or precedent. When one looks at it, instead, as an ongoing search for correspondence between divine guidance, rooted in the foundational sources of Islam, and the singularity of concrete circumstances, Islamic law is revealed as a practice of discernment against the grain of the particular. This article unfolds this approach to understanding Islamic law by entering the conversation where it is currently most heated, namely in connection with the development of Islamic financial products. A case study of takāful regulation in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) helps substantiate the import of our proposal for attuning to the voice of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), in the face of contemporary questions arising from the design of financial products in correspondence with the Sharī’ah.

Bigamy has been a crime against morality since the earliest days of New France. Of the 385 cases identified in our study of bigamy in Quebec (1763–1960), although priests were often called on to attest to the validity of a marriage or the morality of their parishioners, very few of them played the role of informer. Rather, they turned to the criminal courts only when they were unable to quell a scandal by their own methods. It is apparent that not only did the Catholic Church prefer to handle this offence against monogamous marriage by itself, but most importantly, given the small number of cases taken before the criminal courts, it continued to exercise its monopoly over the institution of matrimony during the first half of the twentieth century, even though the civil authorities sometimes flouted canon law. At the individual level, we would note that the institution of marriage remained fundamental throughout the period studied.