Rebuttal to "dhimmi no more"

Submitted by Leah (United States), Aug 31, 2006 at 23:28

1. You say that Shariah Law, unlike American Law, cannot change. This is inaccurate. Shariah Law can, as Jewish Law has been, be re-interpreted to be more merciful and humane. For instance, the term "People of the Book," originally applied only to Jews and Christian; some modern Shariah authorities now extend this title to those of other faiths, such as Buddhists and even Hindus.

I know little about Shariah Law, but, being Jewish, I do know about Jewish Law. Let me then use Jewish Law as a parallel to Shariah Law (I see no significant differences.) In Jewish law, various technicalities and laws can be used to circumvent or negate the inhuman laws. Stoning for adultery, for example, is allowed only when there are extremely high levels of proof. So are other harsh Jewish punishments. The sexist laws of divorce (women need permission from their husbands to divorce) have been circumvented by either excommunicating men that refuse to grant wives a divorce or using a Heter, a document which must be signed by 100 rabbis that a woman deserves a divorce, though her husband may be reluctant to give her one. Depending on the commentary you're using, Jewish/Islamic Law can be either decent or indecent.

You mentioned chopping off the hand as a barbaric Shariah punishment. There are many requirements, as well as a high level of evidence, one needs to administer this punishment. As such, it is possible to administer it only extremely rarely, if ever. I suggest you research this law thoroughly, and, after having considered all ways to make it more humane, only then reject it. After having done open-minded research, make an informed decision.

The U.S. also does barbaric things. Bush, for example, allows any treatment of certain hostages due to a technicality he has found in the Geneva Convention; he also is now allowing homes to be searched without a warrant. The Kelly Michaels case is also a good example of the imperfections of the American legal system.

Thank you for reading.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".