Islamic Law Today
Jeremiah McAuliffe
http://biz.yahoo.com/law/011205/09528-6.html
Islamic Law, Yesterday and Today
Douglas McCollam (The American Lawyer) --
Senior reporter Douglas McCollam talked with Abou el Fadl about the
current state of Islamic law, the rise of fundamentalism, and what
kinds of security measures an intellectual critic of extremism must
take. This is an edited transcript of the conversation.
Q: What is the state of legal education in Islam? What is taught?
A: The curriculum has undergone a remarkable transformation. In the
classical period Muslim jurists trained for about eight years of
graduate study. And not just in positive law, but in jurisprudence,
logic, mathematics, eloquence, grammar and, in some institutions,
philosophy and so on. In the modern age the curriculum of these
Islamic institutions has been become less interesting, particularly in
countries like Saudi Arabia. Philosophy, logic, rhetoric, eloquence --
all this stuff is prohibited.
Q: Is that because of the influence of the conservative Islamic
movement within Saudi Arabia?
A: Right. The influence of the Wahabbis and their highly puritan
creed. Now the emphasis is what we might call vulgar positive law.
Nuanced approaches to the law, moralistic or value-based approaches,
have all gone by the wayside. It's very legalistic, very mechanical
and technocratic, like a vocational school gone haywire. That is the
nature of the jurisprudence bin Laden has been trained in.
Q: What was his training?
A: He took courses in Islamic law in the school in Medina, though he
didn't complete training. He was instructed only in positive law. All
the courses that deal with the purposes or objects of law, all the
courses about equity in law, none of that is taught anymore. It's
contrary to the fundamentalists' insistence on textual literalism.
That is the standard. Anything not in the text is illegitimate. Of
course, in a literalist paradigm all you end up doing is projecting
your own prejudice on to the text.
Q: Kind of like when you read Scalia.
A: Exactly! (laughs) In fact, if you look at Scalia his jurisprudence
is remarkably myopic. It's very much like the jurisprudence that comes
out of this literalist Islamic school. I've been teaching Islamic law
for a long time and have lectured in Egypt and Morocco and even Saudi
Arabia, and in those places even to ask whether the reader can
objectively approach a text was considered heretical. I was told
specifically in Mecca that they don't engage in this type of sophistry
there. I wasn't invited again. You start to see the roots of the
morally oblivious approach of bin Laden.
Q: Is there any countercurrent in the Islamic legal world?
A: There is but it remains purely intellectual. The thing about
Wahabbism is that it is backed up by oil money and able to disseminate
itself far more effectively than any other approach. It's everywhere.
It's constantly hammering you everywhere you go. For example, the
Saudis funded a translation of the Quran that reflected the Wahabbi
creed and they distributed it for free all over the Islamic world. Bin
Laden took the literalism of the Wahhabi creed to its logical extreme.
He says don't give me any intuitive, common sense, humanistic
arguments. Unless you can show me in the Quran where it says, "don't
bomb the World Trade Center," I'm not going to listen to you.
Q: Besides the Quran, what are the principal sources of Islamic law?
A: The Quran is about 10-15 percent legal. The rest are moral
exhortations, which are largely ignored by the fundamentalists as too
vague to be of any value. The second is the Sunna, the tradition of
the Prophet and the companions. That is where the fundamentalist creed
stops. They don't go beyond these texts. In other schools of thought,
which have lost considerable ground in the modern age, you'd add many
things like equity, local custom and public interest.
Q: There is in Islamic law the concept of "ijtihad," or using analogy
or deduction to arrive at a conclusion.
A: This is a really good point. "Ijtihad" corresponds to a "de novo"
determination of law. In the classical paradigm it meant you wouldn't
rely solely on the text, but could use analytical methods, such as
deductive reasoning. But for fundamentalists "ijtihad" consists only
of consulting the Quran and Sunna, ignoring the interpretations of
jurists through the ages. It is liberative because it negates all the
accumulated interpretations, so you aren't anchored. You approach the
text as if no one has ever read it before and don't bother with
consulting authorities.
Q: That negates, for example, the process by which common law was
developed in the West.
A: Absolutely. Because of the absence of hierarchy, Islamic law also
developed by an incremental, cumulative, adjudicative process in which
the following of precedent was a basic principle. It gave Islamic law
a free flowing, work in process, character.
Q: In the West those legal developments might be reduced to a
codification. Did that ever occur in Islam?
A: Yes. After a period of development jurists would reduce the black
letter of the law to writing, sort of like hornbooks. These books were
used in adjudication and mostly were written for law students and
judges. Then the law would commence on this process of development
again and then you'd need another hornbook. So we have periods of
Islamic law where these books were composed. Fundamentalism has done
away with all of that. It's just considered an aberration, a kind of
sophistry. Rather, you look at the Quran and come out with the law of
God, and that's it. This creed believes that on 95 percent of all
issues there is a clear-cut and precise answer in the text. On the
other 5 percent we can disagree as to what the evidence indicates. But
on 95 percent of issues, the matter is quite clear and settled.
Q: Under that approach how would bin Laden get past the prohibitions
in Islam killing women, children and other innocents?
A: He goes back to the Quran and says I don't see a specific
prohibition against taking hostages, against blowing up people. On
killing civilians he has this tradition of the Prophet that says don't
kill a woman or a child. Bin Laden will say we do have this tradition,
but we also have a tradition that says necessity makes the forbidden
allowed and this is a necessity. It's a literalist or functionalist
approach. Bin Laden would be shocked to hear that in many ways he
epitomizes American legal realism: You reach the result and work
backward to find the justification in the text. So bin Laden would say
that nowhere in the Quran does it say explicitly don't take hostages
or don't blow up people. All it says is don't kill women and children
and right now that is a necessity. Also he'd argue I don't intend to
kill the children and women, and when the Prophet says don't kill
women and children, he means don't intend to kill children and women.
It's a wonderfully legalistic cop-out.
Q: Isn't he then interpreting the text?
A: If you ask bin Laden he'd say no, because he doesn't engage in
interpretation. You and I would say nonsense, this is clearly
interpretation. He claims he is just reading the text literally. He
maintains that unless you are prejudiced or biased or have ulterior
motives, you will see that he is correct; you will not reach a
different conclusion. Well, you know, every literalist can make that
argument.
Q: Islamic law makes a distinction between common criminal conduct and
political actors who engage in otherwise criminal conduct. Which
category would bin Laden fall into and what are the implications of
that?
A: In the classical paradigm Islamic law did distinguish between
criminal and politically motivated criminal conduct. But it was also
quite hostile to indiscriminate attacks on those who cannot defend
themselves or attacks with the purpose of spreading terror. Islamic
law considered such aggressors the enemies of society and God and
didn't care what the political motivation was. But because bin Laden
has no use for cumulative interpretation, he waves this away. He
doesn't care what these jurists have said. So what? He engages in a de
novo literal reading of the text and doesn't see these illegal
elements laid out in the text. They came about through cumulative
practice and interpretations and so are irrelevant to him. He is
completely dismissive of this whole field of discourse.
Jeremiah McAuliffe ali...@city-net.com
Page O' Heavy Issues
http://speed.city-net.com/~alimhaq/miaha.html
Emergency!
http://www.ampcast.com/emergency
Aurangzeb Haque
Salaams all round.
Brother Jeremiah has excerpted this piece and posted it here. I am
grateful to him for this. This is because despite the criticism that I
have subjected this excerpt to, this interview does contain elements
that are critical for us Muslims insofar as our collective life is
concerned. Hopefully this should generate some debate on the issues
involved.
>Senior reporter Douglas McCollam talked with Abou el Fadl about the
current state of
>Islamic law, the rise of fundamentalism, and what kinds of security
measures an
>intellectual critic of extremism must take. This is an edited
transcript of the
>conversation.
A quick read of the interview shows it to be driven with motivations
quite different from those given above.
Mixing of development of Islamic Law and fundamentalism into the same
piece means only one and one
kind of intent only- and I am not saying this as a paranoid. The
linkage as it is made here, particularly with
reference to one special event, be-speaks of an agenda. Thus an Arab
sounding name, who for all one cares
could be God knows who. And one who is being presented upon Islamic
Law as an expert, is really
hilarious since he makes certain mistakes which even school boys do
not. This is the impression that I got
when I read the interview the first time.
Onwards to details. Firstly I really did not bother to go to the link
to read the full article(I might if the discussion gets interesting.
This is because, as I submitted above, the full reading the posted
excerpt left a bad taste in my mouth as I find it an astonishing mix
of
facts and fallacy, designed to suit a particular purpose. I will as I
go along try to bring to light how this mixing takes place. The
important thing is how apparently logical and otherwise objective
people in the West, particularly USA, have changed and are now ready
to
write anything about Islam. One probable reason maybe that there is no
possibility of someone invoking judicial review (TORT) of these
utterings given that Bin Laden or the so-called Muslim fundamentalists
are currently on the run, and no one is expected to go to court on
these things. The most glaring example of it is the media, who have
literally let loose all kinds of balderdash in the garb of speculation
and reporting. This interview seems another example of the same.
>Q: What is the state of legal education in Islam? What is taught?
>A: .. In the modern age the curriculum of these
>Islamic institutions has been become less interesting, particularly
in
>countries like Saudi Arabia. Philosophy, logic, rhetoric, eloquence
--
>all this stuff is prohibited.
This is in fact what all of us Muslims must lament. This is also the
case here in Pakistan. The religious seminaries (Deeni Madaris) teach
a
curriculum (called Nizamiah) which has not grown with the times. In
the
subcontinent there are historical reasons for this connected to the
English imperial domination and reaction thereto. There is currently a
move to correct this situation. However because of serious lack of
resources the efforts of Government are seriously constrained. It
would
be interesting to see if the World Bank/Asian Development Bank would
be
willing to help us in this regard given that it will run against these
organizations' basic rules and regulations (can't invest in any thing
which has religion attached to it, even remotely).
>Q: Is that because of the influence of the conservative Islamic
movement within Saudi Arabia?
>A: Right. The influence of the Wahabbis and their highly puritan
>creed.
>and technocratic, like a vocational school gone haywire. That is the
>nature of the jurisprudence bin Laden has been trained in.
This is where the rubbish starts. To link Bin Laden into such things
smacks of an agenda rather than what the article is supposed to be.
And
this is where the western double standards jump in. During the 80s
when
the Afghan resistance to Russians was on, the vocabulary of jehad was
used by the West, particularly USA in Pakistan and in Muslim
countries.
What ever has been taught in those schools is ages old. There was no
objection to it from the West then, and particularly when it was
producing people to go fight a proxy war in Afghanistan against the
Russians. I vividly recall that at the time President Reagen
officially invited the Mujahedeen over to the White House.
This type of reasoning, nay propaganda, is seriously alienating to
Muslims like myself.
>Q: What was his training?
>A: . . . Anything not in the text is illegitimate. Of
course, in a literalist paradigm all you end up doing is projecting
your own prejudice on to the text.
This is pure nonsense in so far as it is propaganda. For serious
students of Law, Islamic or otherwise, resorting to literal or other
kind of interpretation of the text is a very fundamental question.
Because of the lack of objectivity in the article the writer fails to
mention that it is normal to teach the students in law schools to
FIRST
GO BY THE TEXT. One does not catch hold of ones ear; when told to do
so, by taking his left hand behind the head and catching hold of the
right ear. The simple way is to move the right (or the left) hand and
directly catch hold of the respective ear. This is what literal
interpretation is and it is how the legal newbie is expected to
operate, both in the Western and Islamic legal systems.
Jurisprudential
deductive reasoning and other * sophisticated* techniques are for the
adept, and for those in the business of it like Supreme Court judges
and senior lawyers operating at the constitutional/Fiqhi levels. What
is suggested here is seriously misleading since projection referred to
above can also work exactly oppositely if the person is not an expert,
and does not know how to guard against it. The danger is far greater
in
such questions of policy. Interpretation is a double edged weapon- and
as such, can only be used by the experts. Not only under Islamic but
other systems this is guarded against in terms of first resorting to
the prima facie interpretation or deduction.
To cut; what some will call obfuscation, this short, the likes of bin
Laden are not in the business of debating the legal necessities of
interpretation a or b. He is an action oriented person who acted
against the Russians at the time in the most appropriate manner. He is
similarly doing what he thinks is right in case of USA.
This sophistry that the article speaks of is really in the lawyers
minds who like to twist things out of proportion to win a case. Like a
poet has said:
When Lawyers were born
The Devil retorted with glee
"Today I have been blessed with sons and daughters"
>Q: Kind of like when you read Scalia.
>A: Exactly! (laughs) In fact, if you look at Scalia his jurisprudence
>is remarkably myopic. It's very much like the jurisprudence that
comes
>out of this literalist Islamic school. I've been teaching Islamic law
>for a long time and have lectured in Egypt and Morocco and even Saudi
>Arabia, and in those places even to ask whether the reader can
>objectively approach a text was considered heretical. I was told
>specifically in Mecca that they don't engage in this type of
sophistry
>there. I wasn't invited again. You start to see the roots of the
>morally oblivious approach of bin Laden.
Here he goes again. The morally oblivious approach only becomes
applicable when NY is attacked. Its applicability is never invoked in
case of Russians (during the Afghan war), Chechnyans, Palestinians and
Kashmiris.
I'm not too sure who Scalia is; but this person's criticism of Scalias
ideas should not be taken as proof of the pudding; at least by
netizens
of this forum. There are just as many arguments in favor as there are
against literal interpretation of legal texts.
>Q: Is there any countercurrent in the Islamic legal world?
>He says don't give me any intuitive, common sense, humanistic
>arguments. Unless you can show me in the Quran where it says, "don't
>bomb the World Trade Center," I'm not going to listen to you.
This statement creates doubts about the legal credentials of the
person. The intuitive, common sense, humanistic arguments he is
talking
about is in fact what is called lay opinion. If every Tom Dick and
Harry was allowed to interpret the Law and apply it then the results
need no elucidation.
This kind of argument would never gel with the legally savvy but will
surely mislead the laity. And that is probably the intent thereof.
>Q: Besides the Quran, what are the principal sources of Islamic law?
>A: The Quran is about 10-15 percent legal. The rest are moral
>exhortations, which are largely ignored by the fundamentalists as too
>vague to be of any value. The second is the Sunna, the tradition of
>the Prophet and the companions. That is where the fundamentalist
creed
>stops. They don't go beyond these texts. In other schools of thought,
>which have lost considerable ground in the modern age, you'd add many
>things like equity, local custom and public interest.
Here is another example. The simple answer to this question would
hardly require any reference to fundamentalism and other matters,
unless of course one has an agenda.
The respondent does not cite Ijmaa (or general consensus opinion) as
one of the valid accepted sources of Islamic Law, at least in Sunni
Islam. Qiyas or Inductive/Deductive reasoning is another accepted
source of Law. However we can overlook these blunders given that Qiyas
is mentioned in a roundabout way in the next question. However this
does create doubt regarding his so-called legal credentials as an
"expert", if he does not mention these two sources.
>Q: There is in Islamic law the concept of "ijtihad," or using analogy
>or deduction to arrive at a conclusion.
>A: This is a really good point. "Ijtihad" corresponds to a "de novo"
>determination of law. In the classical paradigm it meant you wouldn't
>rely solely on the text, but could use analytical methods, such as
>deductive reasoning. But for fundamentalists "ijtihad" consists only
>of consulting the Quran and Sunna, ignoring the interpretations of
>jurists through the ages. IT IS LIBERATIVE BECAUSE IT NEGATES ALL THE
>ACCUMULATED INTERPRETATIONS, SO YOU AREN'T ANCHORED. YOU APPROACH THE
>TEXT AS IF NO ONE HAS EVER READ IT BEFORE AND DON'T BOTHER WITH
>CONSULTING AUTHORITIES.
This is true but not the true picture so to speak, particularly the
capitalized part, probably for reasons of brevity.
What is not explicitly mentioned here is that Ijtehad is not for the
laity, and this is a well settled principle. The not bothering about
consulting authorities is seriously misleading since the presumption
is
that anyone who wishes to do Ijtehad has already gained sufficient
proficiency in such matters and is expected to have read such
authorities in detail. The liberative part implies giving fresh
meaning
and life to the Law and not arbitrary thrusting of opinion. Quite
obviously this can only happen in cases of persons who have a long
standing in such matters and have spent lifetimes pondering such
issues. No sane Muslim would talk of Ijtehad and be expected to be
taken seriously if he does not have these credentials, and I'm pretty
sure bin Laden has no interest to be a Mujtahid (one who is capable of
Ijtehad).
This issue really brings us to a very important point on the question
of Ijtehad. This is yet an open question in the Ummah and hopefully
such discussions will lead us to an Ijmaa or Ijtehad in the matter.
This is regarding the efficacy of individual as against institutional
Ijtehad in modern times. Early Islamic jurists were very learned
individuals, well versed in all branches of knowledge. This was
possible since knowledge was not that well developed in those days.
This is not the case currently. The explosion of knowledge in the
current epoch makes it well nigh impossible for individuals to have
such all round expertise. This therefore brings in the need for
institutional Ijtehad through Parliaments, Courts, Think Tanks etc.
which can deploy people of expertise in various areas of knowledge.
This is how Ijtehad is currently done within the Western and other
legal systems. Unfortunately the Muslims are way backward in these
matters. The general concept of the Ummah is impossible to implement
in
these times of Nation-States based upon nationality and principles
that
are antagonistic towards the concept of a community based upon
religious belief. What are the possibilities for us Muslims in such an
environment? How can we as an Ummah put these ideas into practice. We
all need to develop some ideas on these issues. USENET and such modern
facilities provide an opportunity that did not exist in the past. It
must be utilized for this purpose rather than discussing questions
which are mere speculations and intellectual prostitution.
>Q: That negates, for example, the process by which common law was
>developed in the West.
>A: Absolutely. Because of the absence of hierarchy, Islamic law also
>developed by an incremental, cumulative, adjudicative process in
which
>the following of precedent was a basic principle. It gave Islamic law
>a free flowing, work in process, character.
As I have understood it the Answer is complete crap. What is Common
Law
in the West is what is called Rewaj here. Because the respondent is
not
conscious of Ijma as a source of Law, he agrees with the question.
Common Law or Rewaj normally deals with petty matters so to speak,
arising out of local peculiarities, and do not normally involve
references to more global matters. Common law does not entail issues
regarding metaphysical questions like the Essence of Allah, monotheism
v/s pantheism, creation v/s evolution, materialism v/s spiritualism,
etc. Even questions regarding conduct of war by the State is not a
Common Law issue. A good example of a common law question is as one
posted in the thread regarding whether interest earned on bank
balances
can be used for welfare (Please see thread Ribba/Interest on SRI).
The absence of vertical hierarchical structure alluded to, is also
absolute nonsense. In Common Law questions the laity obtained the
legal
opinion of the jurist-consult, and acted accordingly. The hierarchical
structure of the judicial system, which culminated in the Khalifah as
the Chief Judicial Officer of the State was very much there, and was
deployed on matters unconnected to Common Law. Similar conditions
existed in the Christian West as far as these matters are concerned.
To
take the current hierarchical structure of the Courts, which at their
lower level deal with facts; and at their highest, with Constitutional
questions, and to judge the system of antiquity on this basis is
simply
stupid, to say the least.
Also with this kind of stupid reasoning in view, would I be very far
wrong to draw conclusions about their real intent, hidden behind an
acceptable fa‡ade.
>Q: In the West those legal developments might be reduced to a
>codification. Did that ever occur in Islam?
>A: Yes. After a period of development jurists would reduce the black
>letter of the law to writing, sort of like hornbooks. These books
were
>used in adjudication and mostly were written for law students and
>judges. Then the law would commence on this process of development
>again and then you'd need another hornbook. So we have periods of
>Islamic law where these books were composed. FUNDAMENTALISM HAS DONE
>AWAY WITH ALL OF THAT. IT'S JUST CONSIDERED AN ABERRATION, A KIND OF
>SOPHISTRY. RATHER, YOU LOOK AT THE QURAN AND COME OUT WITH THE LAW OF
>GOD, AND THAT'S IT. THIS CREED BELIEVES THAT ON 95 PERCENT OF ALL
>ISSUES THERE IS A CLEAR-CUT AND PRECISE ANSWER IN THE TEXT. ON THE
>OTHER 5 PERCENT WE CAN DISAGREE AS TO WHAT THE EVIDENCE INDICATES.
BUT
>ON 95 PERCENT OF ISSUES, THE MATTER IS QUITE CLEAR AND SETTLED.
Really unbelievable, particularly the capitalized part. Fundamentalism
is not a recognized school/legal system/creed such as the various
Sunni
schools (Shaafii, Hanafi, Maliki etc.) or the Shiite ones (Isnaa
Ashari, Ismaili etc.). Much before Bin Laden became a star, the
Iranians were the leading lights as far as West was concerned, in
spreading international terrorism. Is that to say that the Iranians
who
follow the Jaffria mode of Islam, are taken off the list of
fundamentalists. Maybe we should send this novel suggestion to the US
State Department ;-). Or maybe it means that since bin Ladin is a
wahabi and is a fundamentalist and so are the Iranians, so it follows
that followers of Jaffaria and Wahabi mode are both fundamentalists
and
as such terrorists. The State Department would like this one better.
The historical process of the development of Islamic Law as it has
become stagnated, is related to issues that have metaphysical and
political economic dimensions. These rise out of the advances in
knowledge that have taken place over time. No one would deny that
development on that front is at a standstill since the middle ages.
However to suggest by implication, as is being done here that this is
the cause of, or connected to so-called Islamic fundamentalism is
absolute hogwash. The common law questions are more or less settled on
case law basis. Reopening closed issues when specific advice is
available, is out of question.
The whole piece is laughably bad, to put it mildly, with a covert
agenda at its back.
>Q: Under that approach how would bin Laden get past the prohibitions
>in Islam killing women, children and other innocents?
>A: He goes back to the Quran and says I don't see a specific
>prohibition against taking hostages, against blowing up people. On
>killing civilians he has this tradition of the Prophet that says
don't
>kill a woman or a child. Bin Laden will say we do have this
tradition,
>but we also have a tradition that says necessity makes the forbidden
>allowed and this is a necessity.
Now the attack is in the open. At last the true colours are shown,
after the ground having been prepared for the na‹ve.
What is being attributed to Bin Ladin is of-course a figment of the
repondent's imagination. This is simply an attribution to suit the
fact
after the event. The assumption behind it is that bin Ladin actually
is
responsible for 911; an assumption, the veracity of which I need not
waste time upon.
The unfortunate part is that the apparent objectivity of the American
media has been replaced by a barbaric attitude which comes as quite a
surprise to me. I had earlier thought that it was a moral position.
Now
I see it is merely the ever present danger of Libel suits- which is
absent in this case.
>It's a literalist or functionalist
>approach. Bin Laden would be shocked to hear that in many ways he
>epitomizes American legal realism: You reach the result and work
>backward to find the justification in the text. So bin Laden would
say
>that nowhere in the Quran does it say explicitly don't take hostages
>or don't blow up people. All it says is don't kill women and children
>and right now that is a necessity. Also he'd argue I don't intend to
>kill the children and women, and when the Prophet says don't kill
>women and children, he means don't intend to kill children and women.
>It's a wonderfully legalistic cop-out.
What can one say about the above. Such nonsense, even used as a matter
of speaking in such matters is fraught with dangers which the
respondent is probably oblivious of OR the magazine has an agenda.
>Q: Isn't he then interpreting the text?
>A: If you ask bin Laden he'd say no, because he doesn't engage in
>interpretation. You and I would say nonsense, this is clearly
>interpretation. He claims he is just reading the text literally. He
>maintains that unless you are prejudiced or biased or have ulterior
>motives, you will see that he is correct; you will not reach a
>different conclusion. WELL, YOU KNOW, EVERY LITERALIST CAN MAKE THAT
>ARGUMENT.
What our Mr. Expert conveniently fail to mention is that (ref. the
capitalized part) the poison works both ways. Without going into
detailed analysis of the above Question/Answer, let me say that the
respondent is illogically taking himself to be the point of reference
and by implication CORRECT. NOTHING can be so far from the truth. This
kind of arguments can very easily hoodwink the na‹ve, and that
is
probably what the intent is.
Un fortunately we do not have the respondent here to respond to my
allegation, since I would have loved to demonstrate it by actual
debate. Maybe Br. Jeremiah could assume the role of the devil's
advocate and we can have a go at it.
>Q: Islamic law makes a distinction between common criminal conduct
and
>political actors who engage in otherwise criminal conduct. Which
>category would bin Laden fall into and what are the implications of
>that?
>A: In the classical paradigm Islamic law did distinguish between
>criminal and politically motivated criminal conduct. But it was also
>quite hostile to indiscriminate attacks on those who cannot defend
>themselves or ATTACKS WITH THE PURPOSE OF SPREADING TERROR.
Frankly I cannot make head or tail of this part of the response. I
could not fathom the word "BUT" in the beginning of the second
sentence.
While classical literature does speak of attacking those who cannot
defend themselves, I cannot for the life of me divine where the
reference to terrorism (ref. capitalized portion), comes from. Unless
of course he implies that "indiscriminate attacks on those who cannot
defend themselves" ARE "attacks with the purpose of spreading terror
(and as such terrorism)". This is simply preposterous. If this is
indeed the interpretation, it is this kind of "brilliant" hermeneutics
that smacks of a sinister agenda.
>Islamic law considered such aggressors the enemies of society and God
>and didn't care what the political motivation was. But because bin
>Laden has no use for cumulative interpretation, he waves this away.
What he calls "cumulative interpretation" is in fact his way of saying
that "an interpretation favorable to his point of view".
>He doesn't care what these jurists have said.
Terrorism as we understand the word is a modern idea, arisen due to
modern technological means. There IS no mention of it in classical
literature.
Which jurists? I wish he was here to say.
>So what? He engages in a de
>novo literal reading of the text and doesn't see these illegal
>elements laid out in the text.
How do you do a de-novo literal reading is beyond me.
> They came about through cumulative
>practice and interpretations and so are irrelevant to him. He is
>completely dismissive of this whole field of discourse.
Who are "they"? This one is Absolute Greek to me. Maybe "they" is a
typo. It was probably meant to be "these" and refers to the illegal
elements quoted above. I am afraid unless this is elaborated further
it
is absolutely meaningless, at least to me.
Regards
Aurangzeb
Jeremiah McAuliffe
On 10 Jan 2002 14:59:04 GMT, rl...@brain.net.pk (Aurangzeb Haque)
wrote:
>This sophistry that the article speaks of is really in the lawyers
>minds who like to twist things out of proportion to win a case.
Perhaps you should have checked out the article and the interviewee a
bit more closely. You've taken on a very big gun!
I just got two of his books.....
Khaled Abou El Fadl
Acting Professor of Law
The Omar and Azmeralda Alfi Distinguished Fellow in
Islamic Law
Born Kuwait 1963, raised in Egypt and Kuwait
B.A. Yale, 1986
J.D. University of Pennsylvania, 1989
Ph.D. Islamic Studies, Princeton, 1999
UCLA Law faculty since 1998
Khaled Abou El Fadl is one of the leading authorities in Islamic law
in the United States and Europe. His personal library contains over
6500 Islamic books and manuscripts, some dating from the thirteenth
century. He teaches Islamic law, Middle Eastern Investment Law,
Immigration Law, and courses related to human rights and terrorism. He
works with various human rights organizations, such as Human Rights
Watch and the Lawyer's Committee for Human Rights. He often serves as
an expert witness in international litigation involving Middle Eastern
law, and in cases involving immigration law and political asylum
claims.
Professor Abou El Fadl was trained in Islamic legal sciences in Egypt,
Kuwait, and the United States. After law school, he clerked for
Arizona Supreme Court Justice J. Moeller. While in graduate school, he
also practiced immigration and investment law in the United States and
the Middle East. He previously has taught at the University of Texas
at Austin, Yale Law School, and Princeton University. He is an avid
fan of the Egyptian diva Umm Kulthum.
Professor Abou El Fadl's books include: Conference of the Books: The
Search for Beauty in Islam (2001); Rebellion in Islamic Law (2001);
Speaking in God's Name: Islamic Law, Authority and Women (2001); and
And God Knows the Soldiers: The Authoritative and Authoritarian in
Islamic Discourse (2nd ed. revised and expanded, 2001).
Aurangzeb Haque
>
> Perhaps you should have checked out the article and the interviewee a
> bit more closely. You've taken on a very big gun!
I have, and I find little to change my opinion.
It is not my place to challange his credentials. What I definitely
take an exception to is his mixing up of matters which create a bad
taste. But given that he is very young and perhaps not yet wise in the
ways of the world he may be forgiven for that. A more seasoned person
would have refused to answer the questions on OBL and get himself
embroiled in this "controversy".
I think we'll leave it at that and request Jeremiah to read and
summarize the important parts in the books.
wa-salam
Aurangzeb Haque
Jeremiah McAuliffe
wrote:
>
>I think we'll leave it at that and request Jeremiah to read and
>summarize the important parts in the books.
Insha Allah.
I started the real controversial one on The Authoritative and
Authoritarian.....