The Spectacle Blog

Interpreting Sharia

By on 10.29.11 | 3:22PM

Aaron Goldstein is pretty fired up about two things: the World Series, and sharia law.

As for the latter, I'm pretty sure he's referencing a particular Quranic sura (2:282) that reads: ...and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her.

I'm simply going to leave it to our savvy readership to decide just how wicked this verse is -- and how open to interpretation it might be. My point from the very beginning was that sharia is highly interpretive, as opposed to inherently insidious. It's an ancient religious text that can be understood from a galaxy of different perspectives.

As we all know, there's clearly nothing in the Old Testament that could possibly hint at misogyny. Heaven forbid a seventh-century text make amends for women's interest in legal matters, or spare them the full burden of testimony.  Wait a second...hold the phone...have I just interpreted the text differently from Aaron!? How bizarre. 

Oh, and I'm sure I've just invited a deluge of "jihadwatch.com" citations and Daniel Pipes quotes, but I'm perfectly content to hold the line for a more cosmopolitan worldview. I suppose it's my cross to bear.

Also to Aaron -- in the future, when commenting on Malaysian affairs (or perhaps Islam in general) I'd suggest you steer clear of websites that casually advocate the suspension of our constitutional republic in favor of George W. Bush's "permanent presidency" to correct the "inadequacy" of our democracy. 

I, among others, am prone to question their acuity.

Send to Kindle

Like this Article

Print this Article

Print Article