Gary Ashcroft
Posted April 13, 2011 at 7:41 PM

Katelyn,
I can understand your antipathy to the assertions I made in my article. I would probably display a similar reaction if I possessed the same understanding of sharia that you possess. However, through cautious and careful research, coupled with the guidance of thoughtful professors, I have come to see sharia in a much more nuanced light. Islamic law, like much else in life, is best comprehended not from a Manichean, black-and-white perspective, but from a vantage point which acknowledges relative degrees of truth and value.

The fact of the matter is that all legal systems have their strengths and weaknesses. Western law systems, including our own, have perpetrated gross violations of human rights that are comparable to the negative aspects of sharia. If you will remember, our legal system has in recent years sanctioned the use of torture on suspected “enemy combatants,” many of whom had no link to terrorist groups or operations. Obviously, the affirmation of such violations of human rights is repugnant, with our legal system’s temporary approval of such measures besmirching the reputation of our judiciary. However, just because negative occurrences have been manifest in our legal system, does that warrant condemning the entire structure? I would answer with a resounding “no.”

In examining the outcomes of sharia, we can arrive at similar conclusions. Yes, sharia does have some negative consequences, but I would assert that it has generally had an ennobling influence on mankind. When Christian Crusaders were indiscriminately killing Jewish and Muslim civilians, Saladin’s Muslim forces maintained sharia provisions for protection of civilians and their rights, regardless of religion. In the same sense, while much of Christian Europe maintained Mesozoic views on the property and divorce rights of women, Mohammad was introducing reforms that gave Muslim women some of the most liberal entitlements of that day and age. In light of such facts, I think any effort to condemn sharia due to a few backwards provisions is a manifestation of wanton ignorance of the good it has done.

As for your discussion of honor killings, may I point out to you that such happenings are illegal according to Islamic law? There is no discussion in the Qu’ran, Hadith, or fiqh (general Islamic jurisprudence) concerning crimes of shame, and correctly interpreted Islamic law doesn’t sanction honor killings. Yes, such atrocities do take place in Islamic countries, but I would say that they are more cultural than religious in nature. Arab culture, among both Christian and Muslim Arabs, has historically been a tribal. Tribal cultures, no matter what their religious affiliation, have been notorious for embracing the practice of honor killing. In fact, the Coptic Christians of Egypt have performed many honor killings over the course of the past few years.

Concerning the Muslim Brotherhood, I would like to point out that it is by and large a very centrist, moderate Islamist party. In fact, I would liken the Ikhwan, as they are known, to Europe’s Christian Democratic movement. America and its Middle Eastern dictatorial puppets have a tendency to label all Islamist parties as being extremist, but Islamism is a very fragmented and diverse philosophy. To equate the Ikhwan to Wahhabis or the Taliban is like equating modern Christian Democrats to Franco’s Catholic fascism- it doesn’t make any sense.

As far as Glenn Beck’s Islamophobia goes, I think it is patently obvious that he employs such fear-mongering. I watch Glenn Beck’s show pretty frequently (for comedy’s sake only!) and he regularly makes overtly false and incendiary comments about Islam. If such actions are not Islamophobia, then I’m not sure what is.

http://www.byupoliticalreview.com/?p=99812