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
Haroon Siddiqui Speech
Just read this. Interesting. Three things come to mind: I find it interesting that Mr. Siddiqui has to qualify his statements with the idea that he is not the follow of the Aga Khan, even though he is in front of a “progressive” audience, where being an Ismaili, or Ithna’ashari, or Sunni shouldn’t matter. He critiques the term “extermist” but speaks to a group called “progressive,” which continues to reassert the binary, although from a different direction. He begins talking about how aware Muslims around the world are of prison abuses. I don’t dispute this, but I wonder how the…
Uniforms, Pictures, Aid
Navy Pilots reprimanded for saving lives. Bush pulls firefighters from rescue operations to take pictures. Firefighters refuse to be used as props and are told they are anti-American. Technorati Tags: Katrina
Muslim Police Officers are Corrupt
At least in England. I would think government employee corruption would be a sign of integration, and thus a good thing. Technorati Tags: England, Police
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. 🙂