The article starts out so very promising on the varieties of interpretation that we call shari’ah. Then it so quickly devolves into conflating constitutional law with religious law, without really explaining how such conflations take place. The article also talks about the religious Shi’ah and the secular Kurds and Sunnis. What about the secular Shi’ah and the religious Kurds and Sunnis? There are huge varieties of interpretation even within the traditions. Finally, page 2 is mostly about cultural practices that the author makes sound like shari’ah. This is a blog, I can say things and pre-suppose knowledge, and get into conversations with people. The NYT should do better.
Related Posts
Muslim condemnations of London bombing… [updated]
I had hoped to create a list of Muslim organizations and individuals condemning the London bombing, because every time something like this happens, there are voices that say violence is an intrinsic part of the Islamic tradition, and claim that because no Muslims have denounced the violence, it must be true. However, Muslims are constantly denouncing violence, but we are speaking from soap boxes. The fringe of humanity (these terrorists are the fringe of humanity, not just Islam) will always be louder. While gathering my material, several other sites have compiled these condemnations, including non-English material. I am linking to…
Guns and terrorists don’t mix; no one is accountable
Look here. Sam I Am sent the link.
Forest for the Trees
The Muslim American Society has been organizing people to boycott Fleet Bank for allegedly discriminating against Muslims. Based on the evidence they, MAS, have presented, I think it’s important to bring any impropriety out and to use not only criminal sanction, but also market sanction. But…
One thought on “He doesn’t get it”
Comments are closed.
I gotta be honest. Though I don’t disagree with your criticisms, that article didn’t really bother me much at all. Glad you’re out there on the front lines. 🙂