Comparative law is a field of legal study in its own right. Perhaps now more than ever, legal academics love talking (and writing) about comparative law and comparative approaches to law. Indeed, pick a legal academic institution at random and the likelihood is that it will offer some sort of comparative legal study. For example, on its website, the University of Oxford states that:

University College London offers an LLM in Comparative Law,Footnote ² the University of Edinburgh offers an LLM in Comparative Private LawFootnote ³ and Newcastle University offers an undergraduate degree in what it calls ‘Global Legal Studies.’Footnote ⁴ Such study is not peculiar to the UK. I have undertaken this book review whilst on a trip to the State of Qatar. Having had a chat with the Dean of the College of Law at Hamad Bin Khalifa University, I looked at that institution’s website to see the following:

Thus there can be no doubt that the study of comparative law (or comparative approaches to law) is a very real discipline and one that appears to be spreading like wildfire throughout academic institutions. This book, therefore, appears to be very much in keeping with the current trend. However, it does not limit its subject to law but extends it to religion, creating arguably a task that is twice as formidable as it seeks to grapple with two distinct, although often related, subjects through a comparative lens. On that note, it is perhaps worth briefly addressing the limitations of the publication first. Although it has a broad title, the legal systems and religions that are covered in any meaningful detail are confined to what some might consider to be the most well-known – at least from a ‘Western’ perspective. This is not a criticism as doubtless the subject areas covered in this publication reflect the particular knowledge and expertise of the contributors. Moreover, any publication that seeks to cover such a broad topic is inevitably going to have to limit its ambit. This book is no exception to that.

The book is divided into three parts. The first is titled ‘Comparative Theories, Approaches, and Methods’. It strikes me that this part will be of particular interest to academics and researchers as opposed, perhaps, to legal practitioners. That is because its focus, if I have understood the chapters correctly, is very much on how one might undertake a comparative study as well as the challenges involved in so doing. The first chapter, for example, ‘How to Do Comparative Law and Religion’ speaks for itself (pp 11–21). It is nicely written and gives the reader of any ability a relatively gentle introduction to the topic. That can be contrasted with the second chapter, ‘Understanding Models of State-Religion Relationships’ (pp 22–51), which provides a much more detailed and complex adventure into the different types of state–religion relationship which it is said exist. It even comes with diagrams and tables that whilst doubtless helpful to someone who is already familiar with the topic might be a bit daunting for the beginner.

Part II is headed ‘Comparative Case Studies in Law and Religion’. This part, I suspect, will find appeal with a much broader audience – judges, lawyers, academics, researchers and students. That is because it grapples with substantive legal-religious issues which many a reader will already have some familiarity with. For example, chapter 8 looks at the issue of ‘Refusal of Life Saving Medical Treatment by Mature Minors – A Comparative Analysis of Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom’ (pp 172–207). Because the authors have chosen to look at three established and respected common law jurisdictions, the similarities of approach (at least by the courts) that are drawn out in the chapter are perhaps unsurprising. That having been said, there are nuances, such as the differing underlying legislative frameworks and the time spent by the respective courts considering broader human rights issues, which readers may find interesting. Chapter 10 addresses ‘The Kirpan Case Law in Italy and Canada’ (pp 230–245), although does so in the context of what the author describes as ‘judicial populism’. I make no observation about that. The chapter, however, is a particularly noteworthy piece of comparative analysis not least because it is concerned with two very different jurisdictions – one civil, the other largely common law. It focuses on two key judgments – one of the Supreme Court of Cassation in Italy, the other of the Supreme Court of Canada. The analysis offered is focused and helpful. There are plenty of other substantive areas covered in this part – including, in case you were worried that they had been overlooked, discussion on matters relating to freedom of religion (see chapters 9 and 12) as well as wedding cakes (see chapter 11).

Part III, Critiquing Comparative Approaches, comprises a single chapter (pp 379–403) where the editors discuss the different methods that have been postulated for undertaking comparative work in the field of law and religion and, in so doing, cross-reference the preceding chapters. Although I read this book in chronological order, there may, in fact, be some benefit to readers in starting with this final chapter as what it essentially does is introduce different concepts and methodologies and highlights how they are deployed by the contributors to the publication. Finally, do not overlook the Appendix (pp 405–411) which, unusually, contains some brief rejoinders and reflections from some of the contributors.

Although some of the chapters in this book are a little hard to digest, overall this is both a thoughtful and thought-provoking publication which is well-researched and should have a broad appeal.