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.
Op-ed link. Text below the fold.
The BBC is reporting protests in Osh and Jalalabad in Kyrgyzstan in response to the recent election. Bishkek is brewing. I had put the rumblings going on there as flights of fancy. However, if Osh and Jalalabad are in fact under control of the opposition, this could be a very serious movement. The fact that the Bishkek rally was broken up relatively peacefully I think bodes well for the opposition.
If we are a country of freedom; if we are hated for our freedoms; if freedom is on the march; if freedom reigns; why are we fighting a war on terror(ism)? Shouldn’t we be working towards freedom from fear?