From the New York Times, more duplicitous nonsense about Sharia. This one trying to excuse it, based on the argument in a new book "Heaven on Earth" by Sadakat Kadri, who is said to be "nearly as multicultural as one man can get without falling over". And he's a Harvard graduate to boot. Goodness me, how should I not swallow him whole!...
Well, here's one immediate giveaway:
More: Stoning is very much in the "Classic Manual of Islamic Jurisprudence" -- the Umdat Al-Salik, which is authorised by the highest authority of Sunni Islam. [Link at left].
To say that stoning is not in the Koran and is therefore not rightly part of Sharia law is the equivalent of saying that, say, insider trading is not in the Bible, so should not be part of Common Law.
The plain fact of the matter is that there is a codified and well accepted set of laws of Sharia, that they are summarised in the Umdat Al-Sulik, that Islamic States such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan implement it, that a majority of Muslims in western countries wish to see Sharia law implemented based on the interpretation in the Umdat.
No amount of sophistry by Kadri and by his obsequious reviewer D. Garner will change those facts. The Sharia, as codified and practiced today, in actual real countries, is horrid. "A direct path to water" may well be the literal meaning of "Sharia", and a phrase Garner finds "lovely". But it's a poisoned well.
Only the ill-read and willingly credulous will be taken in by this piece. Sadly, they are many...
*****
LATER: Last para: Kadri "... constructs an urgent appeal for mutual understanding." What, pray, does he wish we non-Muslim to understand more? If we understand Sharia, if we study it closely, and still find it abhorrent, what then?
Well, here's one immediate giveaway:
"Stoning for example, is not mentioned in the Koran as a punishment for adultery."No, it isn't. But it's in the Haditha, which have scriptural authority only slightly less than that of the Koran. And there's plenty of scholarly discussion as to why a verse on adultery, which was originally slated to be in the Koran -- so say Islamic scholars -- was dropped from the final version. (and, uhm, why something should be "dropped" from the Koran which is said to be the "uncreated and inerrant" word of Allah, we shall simply slip past...)
More: Stoning is very much in the "Classic Manual of Islamic Jurisprudence" -- the Umdat Al-Salik, which is authorised by the highest authority of Sunni Islam. [Link at left].
To say that stoning is not in the Koran and is therefore not rightly part of Sharia law is the equivalent of saying that, say, insider trading is not in the Bible, so should not be part of Common Law.
The plain fact of the matter is that there is a codified and well accepted set of laws of Sharia, that they are summarised in the Umdat Al-Sulik, that Islamic States such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan implement it, that a majority of Muslims in western countries wish to see Sharia law implemented based on the interpretation in the Umdat.
No amount of sophistry by Kadri and by his obsequious reviewer D. Garner will change those facts. The Sharia, as codified and practiced today, in actual real countries, is horrid. "A direct path to water" may well be the literal meaning of "Sharia", and a phrase Garner finds "lovely". But it's a poisoned well.
Only the ill-read and willingly credulous will be taken in by this piece. Sadly, they are many...
*****
LATER: Last para: Kadri "... constructs an urgent appeal for mutual understanding." What, pray, does he wish we non-Muslim to understand more? If we understand Sharia, if we study it closely, and still find it abhorrent, what then?
