Rumors about the supposed ascendancy of sharia law in the West–a staple of a certain strain of conservative alarmism–are greatly exaggerated. That at least is the only conclusion I can reach based on the news from Canada where three members of an immigrant family from Afghanistan were convicted of murder in the deaths of four female relatives who had supposedly dishonored their clan. Those found guilty were Mohammed Shafia, his wife, Tooba Mohammad Yahya, and their son, Hamed, 21. The elder Shafia was apparently the ring leader, masterminding a conspiracy to kill three of his daughters and his “other” wife–he was living in a polygamous marriage–because he believed the young women, ranging in age from 13 to 19, were “whores” who had been polluted by the licentious ways of the West–they were wearing revealing clothes, running around with boyfriends, etc. Shafia’s first wife was killed along with them because he blamed her for their daughters’ supposed immorality.
The case was widely reported to be one of “honor killing,” with Shafia and his wife and son engaging in murder to supposedly cleanse the stain on their family’s honor. If Canadian courts were in fact respectful of such an extreme interpretation of sharia, they might have gone along or at least handed out a reduced sentence. But that is not what happened. The judge sentenced the culprits to life in prison and strongly denounced their behavior: “It is difficult to conceive of a more despicable, more heinous, more honorless crime,” the judge told the defendants. “The apparent reason behind these cold-blooded, shameful murders was that the four completely innocent victims offended your completely twisted concept of honor, a notion of honor that is founded upon the domination and control of women.”
What are the odds that in the future any other sentence could possibly be reached in such a case in Canada, the U.S., or any other part of the West? I’d say the odds are pretty slim. Which is one reason–not the only one–why alarmism about the spread of sharia is so misguided. In fact, only the most fanatical interpretations of sharia would countenance such cold-blooded murder.
The meaning of sharia is as vague and open for debate as the meaning of the Talmud or Catholic theology. Some people will have fundamentalist interpretations, but other interpretations will be more moderate. There is nothing particularly alarming about Muslims volunteering to agree to abide by the laws of their faith in certain matters pertaining to family law, just as some observant Jews, Catholics, and other religious believers do. What would be repugnant and alarming is if some cockamamie interpretation of sharia were infringing on the freedoms of unbelievers or jeopardizing the safety and well-being of those entitled to the full protection of the law. But as the Shafia case in Canada shows, that is not what is happening. And I predict it will not happen in the future either.
Have you never heard of incrementalism? Desensitization? 'Thin edge of the wedge' and all that? n nIslam thinks in terms of decades and centuries. n n
"Decades and centuries"? Men like Mr. Boot start to get annoyed when the dry cleaner is late with their dark suits.
What a relief to hear the West will never be subject to Sharia law. Now Mr. Boot and the rest of the wide-eyed neocons can get back to building "democracy" in the Middle East.
How dare you to compare Sharia with Catholic Theology, which has been painstakingly reasoned, defined, and honed throughout 20 centuries to a very precise and well-established meaning?. There can be no debate on the meaning of Catholic tenets of faith for the simple reason that the Pope is declared infallible in matters of faith and morals by the Magisterium of the Church. So there is no possibility of multiple valid interpretations. As for the Talmud, once again, an enlightened and well established tradition has laid down the meaning of the sacred texts for centuries, but you would relegate this, too, to a place beside the insane rantings of the madmen responsible for Sharia. nIf you wish to write commentary, please do your research and don't equate the highest reach of human religious reason with the lowest depths of ignorant, diabolical, hate-mongering.
There are now, and have been for centuries, lots of Catholic theologians with differing ideas about what is and is not true. The Pope can declare infallibly on some matters of faith and morals, but it is a facility rarely used. In recent times, popes have been very careful about when they invoke infallibility. This is prudent. No sensible pope would want to declare something to be infallibly true unless he is really sure that it is. So there remains a lot of room for legitimate disagreement or differing emphases among theologians. If it were not so, all the theologians would have to find other lines of work, as there would nothing much for them to do.
You're very reassuring Max. It's good to know that we have a real live expert on Shari`ah with us here on the Commentary blog. Now which of the four schools of Shari`ah do you find most moderate? We should promote that one in the West. And which of the schools is most extremist? We should work against that one. No doubt the moderate school must be totally opposed to the dhimma, the inferior and humiliated status of non-Muslims in the Muslim state. Do you think we could recruit real live faqihs [faqaha?] to market the most moderate school in Muslim states with subject non-Muslim minorities? And just what does the most moderate school of shari`ah have to say about the status of women and non-Muslims [the dhimmis]?
The Girls were killed by Sharia weren't they? That should make you concerned about it, never mind that the Canadian Government hasn't adopted it. In the UK girls as old as 9 are forced into marriage in UK Sharia Courts, should there be no worry there? Were you paid to write this propaganda article? n nPockets of Norway are now running Sharia as police get shot at if they go there, Palestinians burning cars with crosses hanging in them while Somalians attack the locals violently. I was born in Saudi Arabia, converted to Christianity while studying in the west and Sharia would give me the death penalty if I went home not to mention all the family members that would kill me. n nThis article is bogus, if you want to learn about Sharia read "Reliance of the Traveller" where it states that killing your offspring is legal, hence Shafia applied Sharia to his daughters and wife. n n"The following are not subject to retaliation" and then lists — after the lovely, egalitarian "Muslim for killing a non-Muslim" and "Jewish or Christian subject … for killing an apostate" — "(4) a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring": n nDon't believe the hype, you don't want any thing named Sharia here, nothing good has ever come of it.
Haha- good luck, Max. You should know if you've been paying attention to Right-wing news/infotainment that the hysterics will not be appeased with anything approaching a reasonable argument for moderation. The pitchforks are out and the torches are lit. Your RINO and CINO badges are in the mail.
I am afraid Mr. Boot misses a large part of the story. The daughters, particularly the youngest one, tried to get help from her school and social services because of the abuse suffered at home. However, noone would help her becasue they were afraid of being called Islamaphobic. So it is all well and good that after they were murdered that these four women are given some justice, but it would have been nice if the people who were charged with their protection actually had done their jobs in the first place. It is not about Sharia per se. it is about the politically correct nonsense that somehow you can't judge Islamic culture because someone's feeling might get hurt. Too bad, while the west is worrying about Moslem sensibilities, women end up dieing simply because they want to be masters of their own lives .
This is an incredibly stupid essay. First, these murderers didn't get "life". They got 25 years without the possibility of parole. Who knows what that really means. Second, many people including myself are surprised these folks got convicted at all. Already there are some that are calling this anti Muslim hate. Third, these idiots who murdered women in their own family are not exactly remorseful. No, they're angry at this terrible "injustice" and they are appealing. This isn't over. Max Boot should shut up about subjects he doesn't understand.