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
Domestic spying by military?
Scary thought. Technorati Tags: domestic surveillance
Hijab
There is an op-ed written in a NY Urdu language paper (English translation) that deals with the issue of hijab. I’m looking for the Urdu version, but the English translation reminds me very much of what some of the early debate was like in NY in English. You would throw out a whole bunch of arguments and see what would stick. The arguments have become much more sophisticated and targeted, helped both by time and the easy accessibility of more academic material. I think this article is important, not because of what it says, but because of the language and…
Mohammed the Brit – NYTimes.com
Mohammed the Brit – NYTimes.com. In this context, the readiness of European Muslims, many bearing the Prophet’s name, to stand up for values of free speech assumes bridge-building importance. It reflects the experience of faith as practiced within a modern secular society.
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. 🙂