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
When Religion and Social Justice can go Wrong
The Revealer on how Hamas is a faith-based initiative. Do people really not see Bush’s plan as being flawed Constitutionally, and in terms of building an American ideal, where everyone is thankful to America, not to the group around the corner?
Friedman on Sistani and the Nobel
See here. Friedman, like most commentators, acknowledges Sistani’s Shi’ism, but fails to understand what that means. “People power” as he describes is what the Ithna’shari conception of the state was/is prior to Khomeinism taking center stage. The idea of jurists leading the state, vilayat-e faqih, is a relatively new concept, but it’s already become normative for even op-ed writers who supposedly have the time to be able to think.
Machsom Watch
Another take on the debate in Israeli society over the checkpoints. I can see the Fox (network) show now: Grandmas fighting Grandmas. I can also see the Fox (cable) exposé: Israel’s fifth column – your Grandmother.
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. 🙂