Reply to Ahmed

Submitted by Lucas (Ireland), Apr 13, 2007 at 15:29

You are correct Ahmed, I was being overly polarised regarding the contribution of Islam and building bridges is a more useful exercise than building walls.

So, I acknowledge that there were a no. of scientific advances in the Islamic World, some great works of architecture like the Al-Hambra, and that the comparison of Jewish and Muslim scientific contributions based on the Nobel Prize is not (entirely) fair - partially because Jewish people seem to have contributed inordinately to Science.

I'm not American, by the way, even if I were, I would still condemn their use of slavery. However, please do note that even when there was slavery in the U.S., it was possible to say "Slavery should be abolished". Why? Because American Law is man's law, and so it is mutable.
Technically, saying "Slavery should be abolished" in a country which is Islamic is blasphemy, and you should be beheaded for saying that. (Because Slavery is allowed by God's Law, and to say it should be abolished to to say that Allah is wrong).
God's Law is immutable - to argue that any aspect of it is incorrect is blasphemy.
(Note I am not concerned here with the realities as to whether anyone is actually beheaded, but rather the theoretical possibility and the theoretical basis for the legal system)

Would you agree that the U.N. Charter for Human Rights is better than Huddud?

Note the Catholic Church at one stage did condemn Gallileo (though not Copernicus). They have (only recently) apologised for this - but they have changed their position. Changing the interpretation of Islam is much more difficult - due to the Asharite school of Jurisprudence, the suspicion of "bida", the reliance on Sharia and the reliance on Divine Revelation rather than Reason. The more I read, the more pessimistic i am as to whether it is possible.

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".