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
Words matter [updated]
And so does race. See here. update: More on Katrina and race. Technorati Tags: Katrina
Good news for Gujarat
via Avari-Nameh. It looks like a good day for the US, because there is now declaration that ethnic cleansers are not welcome here, and for Gujarat, because it says Modi is not of the same tradition as Gandhi.
A Letter from Saudi Arabia
Passed on from a friend from a friend. I can assure that the person is writing from Saudi Arabia. Dear Friends, As I am sitting in front of my home computer, an intense pounding is trying to break through my forehead. I am wondering how quickly the Tylenol will kick in. I have been up this morning since 5:30 AM, which any of you who know me well will be surprised to hear. I was awakened this morning by a telephone call from the Booz Allen senior employee in Riyadh who works on the Saudi Navy Project and lives on…
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. 🙂