Why Shariah? (nauseating)

New York Times ^ | March 16, 2008 | Noah Feldman

[reaganaut1]

Executing people for adultery is ok, as long as you have proof. Problems in the Muslim world should be glossed over to avoid being judgmental, but imperfections in the West should be magnified so that we are properly demoralized. Feldman is a professor at Harvard Law School and is affiliated with the Council on Foreign Relations. They and the NYT should all go do something um ... impossible.

[MrB]

No non-muslim can testify against a muslim.
Non-muslims must pay a confiscatory “jizyah” tax.
Non-muslims must live in subjugation.
No other religions may be practiced openly.
Non-muslims must wear identifying clothing.

on and on.

Yeah, what’s wrong with Shariah?

[Puppage]

No legal system has ever had worse press

Yeah, well....lop'n off heads tends to have that effect.

[facedown]

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

Perhaps during the Dark Ages.

[tet68]

They and the NYT should all go ...
To an Islamic country with out a passport.

[AU72]

If Shariah law is coming to the west, I’m putting all my money in prosthetic device companies.

[vpintheak]

Bass-ackwards-stone-age-evil-cult and law system.

[Puppage]

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

And, the author is a Jew? Sheesh

[PBRSTREETGANG]

An apologia for Sharia?

Spare me.

(Although I’m certain they wouldn’t)

[exnavy]

Life sentances for minor crimes, death for "major crimes", sounds like a cult.

Oh ,yeah, it is a cult.

[TexasCajun]

The author is Stuck on Stupid!

Islam is still stuck in the stone age!

If it wasn't for oil revenues, most muslims would still be nomadic in search of dung beetles.

[Fox_Mulder77]

“Before an adultery conviction can typically be obtained, for example, the accused must confess four times or four adult male witnesses of good character must testify that they directly observed the sex act”

Do they know how stupid that sounds????
The result of this law means only women are ever found guilty of adultery.
I worked with a Pakistani man that was very prominent in Pakistan: he would laugh at sharia law saying even though adultery is a crime that one can be killed over that only women needed to be scared of the law, because cheating men never got in trouble, unless they did something really stupid to make the adultery too public to overlook.

[Digital Sniper]

Say goodbye to Uncle Sam and hello to Uncle oSAMa!

[ontap]

I’m sure Nick Berg was impressed by it.

[RobinOfKingston]

Noah Feldman

There was a time when I thought everyone had a purpose. Noah's scribblings have convinced me this is not so.

[Williams]

Wow, this article is execrable in just the first two paragraphs!

Some countries had bad laws hundreds of years ago, this guy thinks some of our present laws are bad, so we should allow really bad, fanatical religious laws to supplant our legal systems. Oy. This reasoning could just as easily be used to say: "We are so quick to denounce Hitler for exterminating millions, but we shouldn't because we allowed slavery until 1864." Make sense? Next time, welcome the Nazis.

[WayneS]

So, this guy is comparing English Law from 300-800 years ago to Muslim Law today to “prove” how great it will be to live under “Sharia”, and how backwards we are if we don’t welcome it?

Leave it to the NYT to publish such tripe.

[2ndDivisionVet]

More self-loathing Jews, Noah will see the headsman’s block if Sharia ever finds its way here—fool!

[Redgirl]

The Nazis had great organizational skills, Mussolini made the trains run on time, Saddam loved his mommy....

Shariah’s not so bad! Come on, they ask the accused 4 whole times before they execute her! /s

[Williams]

Forget the sexist angle, how about the insanity of executing people for adultery in the first place?