Of course, under Shariah, we won't need secular legal scholars like Noah Feldman.

Posted by: John C at March 17, 2008 4:50 PM

Even if he did he would be quick to point out how it "protects" Christians and Jews, as if that's a selling point, in a country where Jews and Christians do not suffer persecution, and moreover, are already institutionally and culturally guaranteed freedom from persecution. The condescending nature of the "protection" argument is mind-blowing. It smells like a mafia extortion racket.

Posted by: Greek Fire at March 17, 2008 5:17 PM

"...It smells like a mafia extortion racket..."

Who do you think the Sicilians learned the practice from?

250 years of Muslim rule can have a lasting affect in ways unimagined.

Posted by: An_Arbreshe at March 17, 2008 5:44 PM

Such phrases as:
"...In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world..."

Is this supposed to be comedy or has this moron never even read history? I don't even know where to start. How about that a woman's testamony is only worth one half of a man's? ECL has evolved Sharia has been static.

"...Britain has no constitutional separation of church and state..."

Can someone tell me where in the US Constitution this is codified. I know we have no State Religion but what is the actual wording?

Posted by: dentalque at March 17, 2008 6:31 PM

An ass (as in donkey) who writes and tries to find equivalency with English common law will always drag out the laws that were abandoned hundreds of years ago as if they were enforced just yesterday.

FURTHERMORE

The paragraph that begins with this sentence:

"In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world."

Is a load of warm manure, the likes of which I have not seen since I read a sentence written by Noam Chomsky.

Posted by: Pelayo at March 17, 2008 6:35 PM

Dentalque, I was so incensed by Feldman's article that I did not read any comments before I posted mine. I see we latched on to the same sentence. One of us is clairvoyant, and it ain't me.

Posted by: Pelayo at March 17, 2008 6:42 PM

There can only be one law.

Posted by: MP at March 17, 2008 6:51 PM

Posted by: Pelayo at March 17, 2008 6:42 PM

It is just so stupid! It is journalistic malpractice to write something like that. If a high school senior wrote that they would get a D and a list of references that refute it. For the New York Times to print it, I can't even write what I actually think other that to say it is not even fit to line bird cages.

Perhaps we can get Mr. Spencer to send Mr. Feldman some of his books and an English translation of the Qur'an. I'd chip in if he promised to read it and report back on what he has learned.

Posted by: dentalque at March 17, 2008 7:13 PM

"In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world."

When I looked at this sentence, my first reaction was anger but next next was to ask, has Mr Feldman studied, can he cite statistics that prove this? Certainly one the Magna Carta was signed English law began to have objective standards. The Magna Carta was essentially a contract between objective parties. Sharia is based on a submission to Allah's law and since Allah doesn't appear one is subject to the arbitrary opinions of scholars. Allah's law cannot in any was be questioned. This is hardly a liberal and humane starting point for law.

This is an absurd statement by someone who has abandoned any sense of standards.

Posted by: Jerry M at March 17, 2008 7:23 PM

This paragraph: The Sway of the Scholars

contains this snippet about Mohammed-

"His revelation, the Koran, contained some laws . . ." is obvoiusly written by someone who has not grasped the true source of the Quran, Koran, or whatever. It is not Mo's revelation, it would be blasphemy to imply that it Ole Mo's thought this up. Mohammed was only the conduit through whom the message was transmitted, much like a sewer pipe transmits crap.

Posted by: Pelayo at March 17, 2008 7:31 PM

This article stems from the Arch Bishop of Canterbury's betrayal of his duties as a head of the Church of England. Rowan Williams no longer believes that law should be derived from England's Christian hertiage. And becuase England is now a diverse community , why not consider other sources of law , as all religions seek the same goals, all cultures are of equal importance ... Rowan Williams doesnt believe in the moral superiority of the church he leads...mmh why should anybody else !

Noah Feldman of course defends this line of thought and believes that " At its core, Shariah represents the idea that all human beings — and all human governments — are subject to justice under the law." And while Shariah has some downs sides ( just like English law was harsh centuries ago) The fact that it demands equal treatment for rich and poor...makes it a good fit for Feldman's imagined Brave New World for Muslims. To Feldman, Shariah is merely an expression of Muslim's desire for justice and freedom from despotism. An once implemented , the 'ugly' aspects of Sharia will undoubtedly 'wither' away leaving a just equal society. Utopian paradise through a little bit of Shariah 'fire'. At this moment you understand that Noah Feldman and Rowan Williams occupy the very apex of liberal thought - that is they both advocate cultural suicide , in the name of diversity and multiculturalism , even if it means submitting to the most illiberal force ...because they believe that this will lead to a better world. Past history condemns them as insane.

Posted by: David Xavier at March 17, 2008 9:13 PM

Perhaps Robert will offer refute this guy's book here and there. Thank God someone is doing the work.

Posted by: StillBreathing at March 17, 2008 10:33 PM

The article by Feldman deserves a longer treatment, for it was so meretricious, and meretricious in so many different ways. And how amusing that the same Noah Feldman who a few years ago was playing up his role in writing the new Iraqi constitution now carefully states that he had a very minor role after all. Yet that was not what Feldman was stating a few years ago, that was not what Feldman made clear when he appeared to let others believe that he had a very great role indeed, a useful impression to leave, not only with editors of the Sunday Times Magazine, but also with faculty members at Harvard Law School who, no doubt impressed by letters of support from Roy Mottahedeh and John Esposito, were disinclined to question Feldman's understanding or representation, of Islam because they were unsure of themselves, convinced ( wrongly) that that they would have had to be specialists to give voice to the doubts they might have harbored about Feldman and his understanding of, his represenation of, his way of dealing with, Islam. Now, for many decades, this man whose entire corpus is not worth a paragraph by Joseph Schacht, will have a major say on who comes to Harvard Law School to give courses, or lectures, on Islamic Law, and to judge by his first invited guest, Khaled Abou el Fadl, the students at Harvard are going to suffer through a lot, and be very little the wiser about Islam or Islamic law.

This piece will get a more thorough treatment soon enough. In the meantime, those who want to learn a little more about Noah Feldman can google "Noah Feldman" and "JIhad Watch" and "thrusting young academic." That's just for now.

Posted by: Hugh at March 17, 2008 10:52 PM

The 'meretricious relationship' between the forces of Islam and this 'thrusting young Academic' ( and such Academics everywhere) should be examined. After all his understanding of, his represenation of, his way of dealing with Islam would hardly be exceptional in the 'hallowed halls'.I dare say , the viewpoint he has developed , is a necessary ideological requirement for career advancement. In fact Feldman's first invited guest, Khaled Abou el Fadl, has Feldman himself showing to everyone how he has been reduced to the level of a "Laurie Ferguson MP ".

And here is Andrew Bostom on El Fadl at Harvard, which everyone undoubtedly has read but I repeat because of his sense of 'restrain'.

"Only the most empty-headed buffoons, their minds melted away by ceaselessly and uncritically imbibing the cultural relativism that prevails in our “academy,” and “public discourse,” would even begin to entertain El Fadl’s premise. And yet there he was, at Harvard, no less, espousing such hideous ideas along with the dangerously ludicrous Mr. Mottahedeh, who endorsed them."

Posted by: David Xavier at March 18, 2008 1:19 AM

On my birthday, at the dawning of my twentieth year, so feckless, so unconscionable a work is published, to the delectation of the preening cognoscenti.

Disgust.

Posted by: Funky Child at March 18, 2008 2:14 AM

I agree with her.
Because in National Socialist Germany, ruled by Adolf Hitler(may his Reich last for a thousand years), Jews were persecuted ceaselessly.
This might on the face of it seem a "bad thing", but actually when you consider that in 13th Century England, Jews were persecuted as well, it puts it all in perspective.
In many ways, after all, National Socialism was very progressive, because it built lots of really big buildings, and a bunker.
Hope that sorts it all out for you.

Posted by: Ian at March 18, 2008 4:51 AM

In Turkey, "Sharia" is used to mean an all-encompassing Islamocratic system including not only law, but government, finance, education. It is also uses as the opposite of Secularism. In short, it is the umbrella term to cover everything that secular Turks oppose. As such, we are shocked that the NY Times could have anything good to say about Sharia.

Posted by: Kemalist at March 18, 2008 5:45 AM

What an absolutely shocking level of naivete. It beggars belief that a Harvard education buys you this level of sycophancy to a totalitarian theocratic framework which would reduce him to an inferior in his own country.

Robert, a tab on this site which goes into injunctions from the various schools of Islamic law I think would be welcome, especially the points on which they are unanimous.

Posted by: Infidelicious at March 18, 2008 6:11 AM

In Egypt, women do have half the voice in court. Sharia.

Posted by: FreeSpeech at March 18, 2008 6:21 AM

"delectation . . . preening cognoscenti"

By the time Funky Child reaches his or her sixty-first birthday (as I did on the thirteenth), he or she should know some really big words.

Posted by: Pelayo at March 18, 2008 10:05 AM

With fools like him, we're all doomed. Who needs some rotten Muslim law system here anyways?

Posted by: Dumbo at March 18, 2008 7:06 PM

Well, trot out your dictionaries and drop invective then send some disparaging letters to the NY Times Magazine.

Posted by: Dumbo at March 18, 2008 7:10 PM

Him like it? Let him live it.

World-historical Moron #1,253,786,902.

Theocratic tyranny, softpedalled by a gibbering jackass.

Posted by: profitsbeard at March 18, 2008 11:00 PM

What's his hidden agenda?

Posted by: DaveMate at March 20, 2008 6:55 AM