Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


German nationalist party ...
Today at 10:31 AM

New Britain
February 17, 2025, 11:51 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
February 15, 2025, 04:00 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
February 14, 2025, 08:00 AM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
February 13, 2025, 10:07 PM

Muslim grooming gangs sti...
February 13, 2025, 08:20 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
February 13, 2025, 01:08 PM

Russia invades Ukraine
February 13, 2025, 11:01 AM

Islam and Science Fiction
February 11, 2025, 11:57 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
February 06, 2025, 03:13 PM

Gaza assault
February 05, 2025, 10:04 AM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
February 03, 2025, 09:25 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Anybody read "Heaven on Earth: A Journey through Islamic Law"?

 (Read 1752 times)
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Anybody read "Heaven on Earth: A Journey through Islamic Law"?
     OP - April 19, 2012, 12:38 PM

    This is an interview with British lawyer Sadakat Kadri on NPR (sorry I can't get the link to show up) who claims that "shari'a" is misunderstood,  that shari'a is not really about slavery, concubinage, amputation, death for apostasy, etc., and that this is all "fiqh" and not authentically "shari'a." That in spite of what you can find in Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanafi, and Hanbali, that this is not really what Islamic law is about.

    He also claims that the harsh punishments are a "creature of modernity" that dates back only 40 years or so.
     
    I haven't read the book but this seems  remote from what anyone can find out for themselves about shari'a from Muslim sources. I also can't understand the argument that the difficult standards of proof for the application of hudud punishments somehow makes them acceptable or above criticism.

    And he's a human rights lawyer. Anybody read this?
  • Re: Anybody read "Heaven on Earth: A Journey through Islamic Law"?
     Reply #1 - April 19, 2012, 12:44 PM

    This is an interview with British lawyer Sadakat Kadri on NPR (sorry I can't get the link to show up) who claims that "shari'a" is misunderstood,  that shari'a is not really about slavery, concubinage, amputation, death for apostasy, etc., and that this is all "fiqh" and not authentically "shari'a." That in spite of what you can find in Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanafi, and Hanbali, that this is not really what Islamic law is about.
    ........................

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/books/heaven-on-earth-by-sadakat-kadri.html

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Re: Anybody read "Heaven on Earth: A Journey through Islamic Law"?
     Reply #2 - April 19, 2012, 01:39 PM




    Aatish Taseer reviews that book

    Quote
    Sadakat Kadri, a lawyer by training, is careful to issue disclaimers. "Lest it be necessary to say so – and it probably is," he writes in the prologue to Heaven on Earth, "it [his book] does not intend at any point to challenge the sacred stature of the Prophet Muhammad, the self-evident appeal of Islam, or the almightiness of God."  Kadri is right to be careful, for he has managed, in an area often saturated with pieties, to write a truly penetrating and provocative book. Heaven on Earth, though it might not challenge the sanctity of Islam, leaves the average reader with a kind of wonder, akin to when he first learns of the apocryphal gospels, as to what a malleable and, at times, politically expedient a thing God's law was in the early days of its arrival on Earth.

    The book – in part a straight history of the sharia, in part a journey probing its application in our present time – opens in 7th-century Arabia. The year is 610 and a 40-year-old Meccan trader is feeling the first throb of revelation. With the exception of Barnaby Rogerson's Heirs of the Prophet Muhammad, I have read few books that give as humane and believable a portrait of the Prophet as this. The picture that emerges is of a man balancing the pressures of divine revelation with the political demands of having become, at the end of his life, king and general of Arabia. As faith adjusts to the needs of the moment, the ground is prepared for one of Kadri's big themes: the tension between text and context.
    Quote
    And, no one, it turns out, is better at managing the two than the Prophet himself, now – once the Jews betray him – changing the direction of prayer away from Jerusalem to the pagan temple of the Ka'bah at Mecca, now producing a swift revelation to protect the honour of his young wife, Aisha.

    Muhammad's flexibility, rather than casting a dubious light on his prophethood, emerges as an attribute of his political wisdom and leadership. And it seems that a similar spirit, protean and adventurous, guides Islam through those first few centuries of its ascent, when it breaks out of the little world of Arabia and is fertilised by the classical civilisations of Byzantium, Persia and India. "Indeed," Kadri writes, "Islam would have been incapable of developing such traditions without a capacity to learn and borrow." The traditions referred to here are architectural, but the point holds equally true for other schools of learning, like medicine, mathematics and – Kadri's speciality – the law.

    .........................

    In the second part of the book, Kadri travels in those places where decline has brought withdrawal and retreat. I must confess that I liked this section less than the first. Kadri is not a good traveller; his visits to Deoband in India, madrasas in Karachi, Qom in Iran and Cairo can feel bitty and scripted. He does not have the ability to probe the people he travels among; he does not, through the close observation of behaviour – here a man's mannerisms, there his clothes, his speech, his smile – flush out deeper truths about them. His people, often ideological anyway, can sometimes feel like symbols, as if they are standing in for grander, more abstract theories about law and Islamic tradition. And there is something bloodless about looking at people in this way; it gives this section of the book a faintly predetermined and preachy quality. Kadri goes from place to place, assiduously establishing moral equivalencies, now chiding Muslims, with their own holy words, for playing God, now reminding westerners of the dangers of Islamophobia. All very even-handed, but a little dull. There is also a trace of that strange tendency, so common in the Muslim world, of working backwards: of finding a basis in the sharia for values, such as modern human rights and liberties, the truth of which nobody, least of all Kadri, needs the sharia to tell us.

    But these are small criticisms of an otherwise first-rate book; and they are not so damning: for even in these travel sections Kadri's research is prodigious and his descriptions of the abuses of Islamic law, such as in the area of blasphemy in Pakistan, very affecting. At its best, Heaven on Earth is a meditation on how decline – and the attendant loss of self-confidence – can reduce the once grand ideas of a civilisation to petty rigidities...

    read it all at the link

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Re: Anybody read "Heaven on Earth: A Journey through Islamic Law"?
     Reply #3 - April 19, 2012, 02:04 PM



    Ophelia Benson has responded to this. Final line is most important:

    "because God is not around for appeals"


    ++++++

    A lawyer called Sadakat Kadri was on Fresh Air yesterday to talk about his new book on the history of sharia. He’s very critical of the idea that sharia courts are a bad thing. He’s of the “it’s all a matter of interpretation” school, as if that by itself solves the problem of goddy law.

    “It’s a huge oral tradition, which was set down in the 9th century and which was then, by some people, transformed into compulsion and rules,” Kadri tells Fresh Air‘s Terry Gross. “It would be literally impossible to follow all of them, because plenty of them directly contradict each other. So you have to make choices, and Muslims have been making choices for … the last 1,400 years. And what’s happened over the past 40 years is that in certain places, the hard-liners have come to the forefront.”

    No, you don’t “have to” make choices. You don’t “have to” pay any attention to it at all. Who cares what people “set down” in the 9th century? This isn’t the 9th century.

    We may find wisdom and insight in writing from previous centuries, but we don’t “have to” and we shouldn’t treat any of it as mandatory, much less as orders from god. (If god really wanted to give us instructions it ought to find a more reliable method of saying so. Then we could still decide whether to obey or not.) There is simply no good reason to treat one particular book or collection of sayings from the distant past as any more binding than any other such book or collection of sayings. We should treat them all as what they are: things that human beings have said and written.

    If we’re making choices, then we’re making them according to our own secular values. (If we make no choices but obey everything blindly, including when they’re contradictory, we’re making a huge mistake.) Forget the holy books and do your best with secular reasoning.

    But of course people don’t, so they’re at the mercy of those hard-liners that Kadri mentions.

    "People just seemed to be arguing about Islam, Islamic law, the Shariah, without actually getting to the substance of what it was all about. So because I come from a Muslim background, I certainly had plenty of people I could ask. I started with my father. My father’s also a lawyer. I asked him, ‘So what is the Shariah? What does it say? Where is it written down?’ And he didn’t really have an adequate answer, as far as I am concerned. He said, ‘It’s what’s regarded as God’s law.’ And I knew that. I didn’t need to be told that. And the more I asked, the more I realized people just seemed to be ignorant. Muslims seemed to be ignorant, let alone the people who were attacking it without knowing what they were talking about."

    But why try to defend sharia then? Why try to defend goddy law at all? It’s not defensible, because the whole idea of “God’s law” is indefensible, because God is not around for appeals.


    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/04/interpreting-sharia/



    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • Anybody read "Heaven on Earth: A Journey through Islamic Law"?
     Reply #4 - June 12, 2015, 06:31 AM

    Bump.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »