tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5541500.post3439968059234665268..comments2024-03-29T11:29:58.276+09:00Comments on BigHominid's Hairy Chasms: "must-read"Kevin Kimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01328790917314282058noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5541500.post-12102646316244024472014-09-26T17:25:33.730+09:002014-09-26T17:25:33.730+09:00I suspect that sharia, with its ever-growing and r...I suspect that <i>sharia,</i> with its ever-growing and regionally varied corpus (since Islam has no centralization), is much more of a pervasive reality for everyday Muslims than canon law is for Catholics. <i>Sharia,</i> taken as a whole, deals with the superfine minutiae of everyday life and is subject to interpretation by the local imams (I even read one time that there have been pronouncements on whether men should shave their asses—see an example of this <a href="http://www.questionsonislam.com/question/it-permissible-men-pluck-or-shave-hairs-their-body-parts" rel="nofollow">here</a>, if you dare).<br /><br />I also suspect that Christian jurisprudence likely varies in its pervasiveness according to denomination. Jurisprudence is often linked with polity, and since different churches are run in different ways (congregational, episcopal, and presbyterian forms of government), the forms of jurisprudence will necessarily be different as well.<br /><br />As for whether <i>sharia</i> can be compared with Christian jurisprudence: there are doubtless disanalogies (especially in terms of pervasiveness), but also analogies. The "British dictionary" section of Dictionary.com defines <i>sharia</i> as "the body of canonical law based on the Koran." Wikipedia, for what it's worth, associates the idea of jurisprudence with <i>sharia,</i> so I'd say there's definitely some conceptual overlap with Christian analogues like Catholic canon law. And if such overlap exists, then I think the principle of fairness kicks in, and we get tangled in the question of whether banning <i>sharia</i> also means banning other forms of religious jurisprudence.Kevin Kimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328790917314282058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5541500.post-1382788890705652622014-09-25T20:36:10.113+09:002014-09-25T20:36:10.113+09:00It's a difficult issue, no doubt, and I certai...It's a difficult issue, no doubt, and I certainly don't have the answers.<br /><br />I do have a question, though: does Catholic canon law exist on the same level as sharia? Does that makes sense? I mean, is it as legally binding in the secular sense? I know next to nothing about this, but my suspicion is that Catholic canon law (and almost certainly the Presbyterian <i>Book of Order</i>) aren't nearly as far reaching as sharia, and if that is the case I wonder if they can be compared.<br /><br />But, again, I am extremely ignorant on these points. Just speculating.Charleshttp://www.liminality.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5541500.post-17080074345779887742014-09-25T19:08:29.906+09:002014-09-25T19:08:29.906+09:00Clarification: I wrote
"Even stickier: what ...Clarification: I wrote<br /><br /><b>"Even stickier: what if we were to take a surgical approach to <i>sharia</i> and ban only those aspects of it that we Westerners find most repugnant...?"</b><br /><br />In a sense, one could argue the "surgical approach" is already in place in that those atrocious acts are already illegal in Western countries. When I say "ban," though, I'm talking less about a tacit agreement as to how the law of the land operates in and through Muslim communities in the West, and more about the formulation and implementation of actual, explicit policy regarding these and other aspects of <i>sharia.</i><br /><br />So perhaps I could reword the above quote thus:<br /><br /><b>"Even stickier: what if we were to take a surgical approach to <i>sharia</i> and <i>officially, explicitly</i> ban only those aspects of it that we Westerners find most repugnant...?"</b>Kevin Kimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328790917314282058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5541500.post-64950049670946255102014-09-25T18:52:34.063+09:002014-09-25T18:52:34.063+09:00Thinking a bit further:
I think the reason why I ...Thinking a bit further:<br /><br />I think the reason why I sympathize with French <i>laïcité</i> is that it's a brave stance against cultural relativism: it's basically saying, "Some shit just don't fly in our country"—a very public <i>Hier stehe ich</i> (or maybe that's <i>Hier stehen wir</i>) that's been codified in French law. The atrocious acts you highlighted are illegal in France (as they are in America), but those examples of Muslim jurisprudence gone too far are also the easy and obvious cases to cite because they're so extreme.<br /><br />What happens if we ban <i>sharia</i> entirely? Is this even possible if there's to be a separation of church and state? Wouldn't the state be too intrusive at that point? And if we grant the state the right to be so intrusive, then my own feeling is that the principle of fairness would kick in, and it's "in for a penny, in for a pound": if we ban <i>sharia,</i> in America, then we have to ban all other forms of religious jurisprudence. This would be <i>laïcité</i> squared.<br /><br />Even stickier: what if we were to take a surgical approach to <i>sharia</i> and ban only those aspects of it that we Westerners find most repugnant—honor killings, clitoridectomies, apostate-killings, execution of homosexuals, etc? This opens up a whole can of worms as to what counts as repugnant and what doesn't. Obviously, I'd agree that doing away with the cases mentioned would be desirable, but the question becomes <i>Where does the surgery end?</i><br /><br />Perhaps I could have been clearer about this in my original post, but the thrust of my thinking is all toward the practical endgame: if we take, say, Dr. Jones's path of <i>containment,</i> then how do we implement that agenda in real terms? I really can't say. <br /><br />But something obviously needs to be done. Far easier, at least in the abstract, would be <i>expulsion followed by containment,</i> but how likely is that ever to happen? What politician will put his name on such a policy?Kevin Kimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328790917314282058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5541500.post-57534168630263433542014-09-25T18:36:40.771+09:002014-09-25T18:36:40.771+09:00I'm more sympathetic to the French notion of l...I'm more <i>sympathetic</i> to the French notion of <i>laïcité</i> than in <i>full agreement</i> with it, but yes, as I admitted in the post, my own stance is definitely confused. I haven't settled on a firm position yet, mainly because I'm still slowly and randomly collating information. Your reading of me and my headspace isn't wrong.Kevin Kimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328790917314282058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5541500.post-29436888790150603562014-09-25T15:57:41.227+09:002014-09-25T15:57:41.227+09:00I'm a little confused about your stance on sha...I'm a little confused about your stance on sharia. You start out with this: "Muslims are correct when they judge it unfair for non-Muslim Westerners to claim that Muslims should have no right to practice sharia in their own communities," but then you say you agree with the idea that "the law of the land prevails in all instances in which religious law and secular law are in conflict."<br /><br />Under sharia, apostasy is punishable by death. (In some countries, homosexuality is also punishable by death.) We probably don't need to go into the violence sanctioned against women who act "improperly." Are these not all instances where religious law and secular law are in conflict? And is it thus really unfair to tell Muslims that they cannot beat or kill people who think or act differently than they do, but who have otherwise broken no law of the land?<br /><br />Did I miss something? I feel like I did, but I don't know what it is.Charleshttp://www.liminality.orgnoreply@blogger.com