It’s a lot more complex – and a lot less foreign – than you might expect. I excerpt a piece from the Oxford Islamic Studies Online site that is really worth reading.
Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.
Support Dean’s World
{ 15 comments }
The scholars are invariably reasoned, thoughtful, and, relatively speaking, in line with the modern world.
However, the Muslim population in most of the countries that have Sharia are a howling mob who thirst for the maximum penalty, and, when it is not imposed by the more rational courts, take justice into their own hands. Such is the reason that a 13-year-old rape victim was stoned to death for – I love this – adultery. After all, since she was "immodest" and had sex, she should be punished, shouldn’t she? I mean, how else could a civilized society act?
Until I see evidence that Sharia is applied in the same manner that the more modern world applies their laws, what the scholars say is worthless – it will be ignored in practice.
Once again, Aziz pisses on our collective heads and calls it "rain".
So Aziz, I’m planning a trip to Mecca, just to study the architecture, will "shari’a" support my Human right to visit?
"Sharia" = study and practice of Islamic law, based on precedent and debate and history.
There. That wasn’t so hard, was it?
You want to make it sound evil and awful? Not hard to do. You can do that with the Bible too. But if you do, you’ll be accused of "attacking Christianity."
…or of "moral equivalency" I suppose.
How shallow can you get?
"Sharia" = religious "law" that will never be enforced by our civil authorites, our states or our nations. Americans are fortunate enough to be protected from apartheid religious laws by our constitution.
"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."
That’s our "liberal tradition in history.. and philosophy"
Sharia is the body of (imposed) Islamic religious law…it is the legal framework within which the public and private aspects of life are regulated for those living in the legal system based on Islamic principles of jurisprudence …
Tariq Ramadan’s conclusion that a sprinkling of a few democratic principles by a consultative council is unfortunately short of both justice and liberty.Â
Sharia law will always be woefully deficient as long as it fails to legally recognize the separation of both church (religion) and state.
And then there is this example of ‘a lot more complex’ :
Saudi Arabia to lead UN talks on religious tolerance
the Muslim population in most of the countries that have Sharia are a howling mob
ah, a racist. Hi.
I remember something very well that I was taught my Freshman year in High School by Augustinian monks at St. Rita High School in Chicago:
Stupidity and ignorance are not the same thing. Stupidity means you don’t understand something that’s been explained to you. You’ve had it explained to you, but you still don’t get it. You’re being stupid, at least on that subject. It’s not a crime, it’s just a difficulty you have.
Ignorance means you don’t know something. Ignorance is also not a sin. It means you just weren’t told. You just don’t know. Ignorance is never a sin. All it means is you just don’t know.
"I don’t know, and I don’t want to know," now THAT is the ultimate arrogance, at least if you take pride in it: "I don’t know, I don’t want to know, but nevertheless I’m going to make a slew of value judgments anyway."
Another way of putting this is "aggressive ignorance": I don’t know, I don’t want to know, and FUCK YOU if you think differently of me anyway.
Sharia is the study of Islamic law. That’s all it is, period. Saying that Sharia is evil because some Sharia courts have ruled that stoning people to death is OK, is like saying that American jurisprudence is inherently evil because it once allowed slavery.
"Hey, let’s not have laws. Because the law once allowed beating slaves. Therefore, laws are bad! Let’s have no laws, because laws allow you to keep slaves!" How stupid would that be?
I have said many times to my Muslim friends that I don’t think Muhammed was a prophet, that I in fact think he was a schizophrenic with a gift for poetry. None of them have taken more than mild offense. But GOD FORBID you should mention that Christian law once allowed treating women as property and justified slavery of the negro because it was in the negro’s best interests. That would be "attacking Christianity."
Smell the hypocrisy.
Apparently the Archbishop of Canterbury is both ignorant and stupid. Back in February, he dribbled once again in his beard in the spirit of ecumenism.
Archbishop of Canterbury argues for Islamic law in Britain:
" The Archbishop of Canterbury came under fierce attack last night from the Government, his own Church and other religions after he advocated the adoption of parts of Sharia, or Islamic law, in Britain. Leaders of all the main political parties made clear that they did not accept Dr Rowan Williams’s assertion that the incorporation of some aspects of Sharia was “unavoidableâ€. Trevor Phillips, chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, condemned his comments as “muddled and unhelpful†and one senior bishop said that he was “surprised and concerned†by Dr Williams’s remarks. Even the Muslim Council of Britain insisted that most members of the community did not want Sharia and emphasised that it had not discussed the issue."
Of course, Dr. Rowan, went into further confused analysis of the analyses into a totally muddled thinking process in attempting to say, well, I didn’t really say what you all thought I said.
"As such he said that sharia is a method of law rather than a single complete and final system ready to be applied wholesale to every situation, and noted that there was room, even within Islamic states which apply sharia, for some level of ‘dual identity’, where the state is not in fact religiously homogenous."
Clarity doesn’t seem to be Dr. Williams forte. And he is presumed to know what he’s talking about.
Aziz, Islam and Muslim are explicitly not a race. Check Mo’s departure speech if you doubt me.
How fucking dare you try to shut down honest debate with the scarlet R.
BTW, Dean, Your argument is basically "Because American Jurisprudence is imperfect we shouldn’t say bad things about sharia even though it is anti-democratic and discriminatory"?
Gods, you’re a moron.
No, Scott, that’s not my argument at all. My argument is that if you have something large and complex that’s foreign to your own culture and experience, it is very easy to make it look sinister and evil by merely cherry-picking your data–that’s what professional con artists like Robert Spencer do for a living (a very well-paid living) just for example, with other people who should know better giving him all credit like he’s doing something noble and brave when he’s actually doing something very evil (and making himself rich doing it).
Sharia, if you decide to learn about it from someone who isn’t a paranoid obsessive, or someone with a political or theological axe to grind, is no more scary than multiple other systems of law–and like most systems of law, it can be changed. Indeed, it does change since there are different versions of it all over the world. It’s first and foremost a scholarly tradition, not much unlike our Common Law system–which I will note used to allow public whippings, slavery, and all sorts of other oppressive things.
What would truly be moronic would be sitting there doing what you’re doing, which is the equivalent of screaming that Common Law is bad because it used to allow slavery. Let’s have no common law, because look, there’s all these bad things that are part of it, or were once part of it!
You should make sure you know something about what you’re talking about before making broad, sweeping conclusions. Anyone who’s not a moron knows that.
By the way, you will be permanently ejected if you call me names on this blog again. This is your only warning.
OK, I was uncivil, I apologize. But the insult grew out of my frustration with your appeasement to Islam. You basically look at a round hole and insist that a square peg will fit in it, despite all evidence to the contrary. Yes, I’m saying that you are being obstinate. Islam in theory and in practice discriminates against the non-Muslim, that’s a fact. Don’t believe me? Then pick up a Koran and read it, like I did (got a free one from CAIR and one from the bookstore).
Sharia is anti-democratic and adverse to individual liberty, and as such should be opposed.
BTW, I’m still waiting on Aziz to denounce the religious apartheid state that is the home of his religion. Until he stands up and declares that he will not go to mecca or Medina until they embrace pluralism and diversity I will just call his demand that he and his religion be granted understanding what it is: Self-serving and false.
Muslims have to come to an understanding that tolerance and diversity is a two-way street; up till now they’ve made plenty of demands and no concessions. I’m not advocating to be less tolerant to Islam, I just want them to deliver in the countries they control what they are asking us for. Is that too much to ask?
There is no "appeasement" of any kind here; that’s the ravings of aggressively, proudly ignorant people and nothing more.
You really, seriously, DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, SCOTT, and because you are proud not to know and very insistent that you WILL NOT be induced to learn more, there is literally no point in even trying to talk to you about any of this.
The rest of what you’re saying is just totally stupid because of all the Muslims who already have done, or already are doing, exactly what you sit there and pompously say they should do. Aziz probably won’t pledge never to visit Mecca until they reform–that would be silly of him anyway–but he’s denounced the Saudi regime and its apartheid practices countless times. I can tell you he’s sick of doing it and just won’t do it anymore because he’s tired of having people like you DEMAND that he repeat himself and apologize over and over again for his faith and endlessly condemn things he’s already quite clearly and vociferously condemned. I don’t blame him a bit.
OK, show me where he has denounced the Sauds for their religious bigotry, against non-muslims not against fellow muslims.
You show me where he has and where he has stood up for my right to enter Mecca as a proud non-muslim and I’ll apologize.
Comments on this entry are closed.