July 15, 2006

FOREIGN CONTAGION:

The two sharias: Islamic law is open to interpretation: a review of Radical Islam's Rules: The Worldwide Spread of Extreme Shari'a Law Edited by Paul Marshall (Morgana Sinclair, 11/07/05, Weekly Standard)

[A]s the authors here explain, there is a crucial distinction to be made between traditional and extreme sharia, and at the outset they provide two essential insights. First, Paul Marshall defines radical Islamism as "a program for the restoration of a unified Muslim ummah, ruled by a new Caliphate, governed by reactionary Islamic sharia law, and organized to wage jihad on the rest of the world."

Second, extreme sharia is shown to be a radical departure from traditional sharia, the body of guidance for Muslims, organized in varied schools. These formulated a legal consensus based on the Koran, the hadith, the lives of the Prophet and his original companions, and precedents from early Muslim jurists. Traditional sharia--"the path" or "the way"--incorporates guidelines for marriage, economics, and criminal law that exemplify justice, "the right," and "the good."

By contrast, extreme sharia claims to manifest divine will. Because extreme sharia, says Nina Shea in her essay, "is maintained as God's direct reign on earth--and not simply a fallible human interpretation of sacred law--it precludes checks and balances, a separation of powers, real legislative powers, the rule of law, and free elections." [...]

[T]he most brutal form of extreme sharia is the original one: Wahhabism, the state religion of Saudi Arabia, which spawned al Qaeda. It arose just 250 years ago in the desolate Nejd region of Arabia. "It is not conservative," writes Stephen Schwartz, in the opening essay, "but radical.... It is not based on sharia as understood during more than 1,000 years of Islamic jurisprudence but on a crude and ultra-simplistic interpretation that rejects the sharia embodied in the four established Sunni legal schools." Women are beaten in the streets for the slightest dress code violation, denied the vote, prohibited from driving, and have no rights even to the children they bear.

Wahhabi extremism did not remain within Saudi borders. Shocked by the Iranian Revolution, and fearful of rising Shia power in the region, the House of Saud launched a campaign for worldwide export of the Wahhabi version of sharia in 1980, funded by their oil wealth.


And Wahhabism will be Reformed out of existence because it bites the statist hand that fed it.


Posted by Orrin Judd at July 15, 2006 11:09 AM
Comments

Were Al-Shafi’i, Ibn Khaldun, Averroes, Ibn Qudama, al-Ghazzali all Wahhabis?

Then how it is that the all affirmed, for instance, the same doctrine of holy war that we are told originated with the Wahhabis?

Posted by: Paul Cella at July 15, 2006 12:33 PM

What does Holy War have to do with it? Holy War is good, that's why we wage it.

Posted by: oj at July 15, 2006 12:48 PM

Holy War is the doctrine we ought to be most concerned about. Shari'a is not much of our concern, unless we follow the Europeans in importing a hostile Muslim population. We may disagree on immigration, OJ, but at least we can agree that it is very good that most of our immigrants are Christians.

As for Holy War being good: not in traditional Islamic doctrine. If any cruel, and plunder, and subjugation, can be justified if it is waged against the unbeliever -- and this doctrine called "good," then I am afraid our definitions of the Good are at variance.

Posted by: Paul Cella at July 15, 2006 2:40 PM

As your pal Putin said today, America wages Holy War.

The Muslim takeover of Europe will be a healthy development.

Posted by: oj at July 15, 2006 4:00 PM

Paul is right. It isn't that hard to differentiate between good and evil. I think OJ may be challenging us here. At least I hope so...

Posted by: darryl at July 15, 2006 9:56 PM

The notion that Islam is evil is mere hysteria.

Posted by: oj at July 15, 2006 10:51 PM

But what if Islam itself is mere heresy?

Posted by: ratbert at July 16, 2006 3:41 PM

One of the three is and we'll all find out which wasn't when He comes. In the meantime, all are good and have so little that differentiates them as to make accusations of evil risible.

Posted by: oj at July 16, 2006 3:57 PM

I haven't said anything about the nature of the Islamic religion; and I think it interesting that fashionable opinion, even here at the esteemed BrothersJudd blog, it is allowed that a man may pronounce on the true nature of Islam -- so long as he pronouces it peaceful or good.

But what I have said something about is the traditional Islamic doctrine of Jihad. It is a wicked doctrine.

Posted by: Paul Cella at July 17, 2006 2:47 PM

That's just silly. But, if, like the secular Left, you consider the Barbarian Conversion and settlement of the New World to have been wicked it's at least consistently inane.

Posted by: oj at July 17, 2006 2:51 PM
« FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS REPEAT MISTAKES: | Main | IT'S GOOD TO BE THE KING: »