Shari'a For Thee ...

Do read Noah Millman, critiquing the defense of Shari'a advanced by his fellow Noah (Feldman, that is) in the Times Magazine.

Comments

The fundamental flaws of Noah's argument are twofold. One, that we should be comparing medieval European laws to modern Sharia law as a rational for the inherent goodness of Sharia. Or to paraphrase "sure Sharia seems awfully backwards. But we were once backwards 500 years ago so it is OK". Two, that the problems of Sharia law are glossed over. The converse of requiring 4 confessions or 4 (male) witnesses for adultery is that the same requirements are made for rape cases. A woman cannot even testify on her own behalf if she is raped. She will need 4 men to testify before it can even go to trial. And therein lies the fundamental problem with Sharia law. It does not overlap sufficiently with Occidental jurisprudence. If we discovered a medieval enclave in the hills of Wales that still allowed spectral evidence, would we say "Okey-doke"? No. So why would Sharia law be okey-doke too? The argument does not hold water.

Posted by freddiemac | March 25, 2008 11:14 AM

Once again contemporary liberal thought can’t confront reality.

This is not some theoretical exercise in “multiculturalism”. (the real ideological gravitational force that is considered controlling)

It is a very practical exercise in law & culture. Both British & Canadian courts a re recognizing over sea’s polygamous marriages as valid under their law. With the advent of gay marriage it becomes untenable to not go the incremental step of allowing those performed on their soil.

Even welfare benefits are being apportioned to the multiple “spouses” of Islamic husbands. The British health service now subsidizes “hymen replacement” for Islamic women (who loose & westernized) NEED that hymen when it comes time to get married to their arranged husband back in the old country.

Contemporary liberalism is incapable of dealing with foreign belief systems. It is a failed intellectual project that will not cry uncle until its contradictions make society ungovernable.

Posted by Fitz | March 25, 2008 1:26 PM

Nobody should be permitted to make uneducated, idiotic comparisons between medieval and shariah law without reference to Harold Berman's "Law and Revolution." Modern western law is, through and through, a product of the middle ages.

Posted by Tom F. | March 25, 2008 7:33 PM

Re: Contemporary liberalism is incapable of dealing with foreign belief systems. It is a failed intellectual project that will not cry uncle until its contradictions make society ungovernable.

Here's a little secret: all ideological systems are failures and would make society ungovernable if applied in pure form. American conservatism certainly is-- note the grinding paradox between its Christianism and its bellicosity and free market doctrine. What's needed in evey case is to leaven out the ideology with moderation and common sense.

Posted by JonF | March 26, 2008 7:28 AM

Mr JonF: It is a remarkable pair of magic glasses that being placed in front of one's eyes transforms modern American 'conservativism' into anything resembling 'moderation and common sense'.

Once upon a time I was a 'conservative' and thought that EdmundBurke and RussellKirk were the exemplars of the movement.

When I became an adult I realized that ideology is the method used by an elite to clothe in philosophical phrases their sales pitch to achieve the goals that advance their interests.

The American economic distribution curve that has been obvious since the modern 'conservative' era began tells all the story one needs to know. The excuse for 'conservativism' that controls the Republican party and AM radio and etc is neither sensible nor moderate; it is a transparent justification for the theft of national wealth and power by a corporate and economic elite.

The only real reason to be a 'conservative' in American in '08 is because you believe the rich are not yet rich enough. Everything else is tactics.

Posted by JohnMcC | March 26, 2008 3:58 PM