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
John Walker Lindh
To be honest, I’m not sure what this piece is trying to argue, but I think it’s an interesting read for some of the information, especially three years after the fact.
We don’t like it
No sirree, to torture Muslims is a bad thing. But I thought the current nominee for the Attorney General post thought it wasn’t.
Reflection on Obama and Gaza
I won’t be posting much today on Gaza, it’s going to get lost in inauguration coverage. I’ll be Tweeting thoughts on the inaugural address. David says something that I think many of us noticed. This is the Tweet I got immediately before his. And after these two Tweets. As American we cry for the hope realized. For Gazans, the tears are for hope lost. Pray for peace. Pray that Obama will make our hopes true.
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. 🙂