APRIL 9, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
"How is it that what so many Westerners see as the most unappealing and premodern aspect of Judaism is, to many Jews, the vibrant, attractive core of a global movement of Jewish revival? The explanation surely must go beyond the oversimplified assumption that Jews want to use halakha to reverse feminism and control women--especially since large numbers of women support the halakhists in general and the ideal of halakha in particular." These observations appeared in an account of the splendors of religious law in The New York Times Magazine last week. They were written by Baruch Spinoza. I'm sorry, I mean Noah Feldman. In a piece in the same journal of ideas last summer, about the bruising of his feelings by the alumni newsletter of his Orthodox Jewish day school, which responded to his marrying out of his faith by refusing to print his picture, Feldman reminded himself of Spinoza. (The "Mazal Tov" section of the school bulletin put him in mind of Yigal Amir.) Spinoza, of course, would never have written so glowingly about Jewish law, and neither would Feldman, and neither would I. I have altered a few words in his text. For "Judaism", read "Islam"; for "Jews," "Muslims"; for "halakha," "sharia." It was Islamic law that riveted him, and that he was promoting as a swell basis for a political order.
How did The New York Times become the voice of moderate Islam in America? I am being mischievous, but not entirely. There was the Times Magazine's notorious (at least I hope it is: we did our best here to make it so) salute to Tariq Ramadan, which was later followed by the appearance in the Times Book Review of Ramadan's endless and unbelievably banal sermon about the Koran. "At the heart of every heart's striving lies the Koran. It holds out peace and initiates into liberty." "As the universe is in constant motion, rich in an infinite diversity of species, beings, civilizations, cultures, and societies, so too is the Koran." Which rabbi or priest would be given pages in the Book Review to deliver the same apologetic tripe about the OT or the N? And now there is this essay in praise of sharia as a "bold and noble" inspiration for contemporary constitutionalism. On page 51 we are shown admiring photographs of covered women in a religious court in Egypt, and on page 52 we are shown admiring photographs of uncovered women in Nan Goldin's so-downtown-they'reuptown pictures of the expensive dresses of Paris. If the ulama fail to hold your attention, there is that flower between Mariacarla Boscono's legs. Meanwhile the advanced editors at the Times Magazine busily expose the depredations, of which there are many, of Orthodox Jews, first in Feldman's bathetic whine and then in a piece by Gershom Gorenberg on the indisputable cruelties of the Chief Rabbinate in Israel in the matter of Jewish identity. The anti-clericalism of these editors seems rather selective. I do not want The New York Times to become the voice of moderate Judaism, or of any Judaism. I want only that liberals desist from granting Muslims a reprieve from the rigors of liberalism.
In his discussion of Islamism, Feldman, who knows a lot more about Islam than I do, no longer rises to uphold the liberty of conscience. Instead he explains warmly that "to the Islamist politicians who advocate it or for the public that supports it, Shariah ... is expected to function as something like a modern constitution." He compares Islamic law to nothing less than "the American constitutional balance of powers." Philadelphia! But hold on. Reading Feldman's analysis, sharia begins to look rather unlike an apotheosis of progressive state-building. For the term "connotes a connection to the divine, a set of unchanging beliefs and principles that order life in accordance with God's will." It "is best understood as a kind of higher law." It is "a legal system in which God's law sets the ground rules." Political legitimacy in a regime of sharia is conferred not by the rulers or the ruled, but by "the scholars," who interpret--which is to say, invent--God's will, and appoint themselves: "judicial authority came from the caliph, but the law came from the scholars." In sum, a dictatorship of divines: malign or benign, but a dictatorship. (Today's Islamism does away with the scholars as "the constitutional balance to the executive," but demands "Islamic judicial review" of all legislation.) It may be that "shariah aspires to be a law that applies equally to every human being," but Feldman says little or nothing about its treatment of women and non-Muslims, or about the law of jihad.
When Feldman's essay appeared, I was reading a book by Abdullahi Ahmed An- Na'im, just published by Harvard University Press, called Islam and The Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari'a. It begins: "In order to be a Muslim by conviction and free choice, which is the only way one can be a Muslim, I need a secular state. By a secular state I mean one that is neutral regarding religious doctrine, one that does not claim or pretend to enforce Shari'a." This is what is bold and noble. The prospects for liberal democracy in many Muslim states are still dim--Feldman is weirdly at peace with the increasing popular support that Islamism enjoys in Egypt, Pakistan, and Jordan--but I do not see that the practical difficulties refute the philosophical principles. (The stupid priests and rabbis, they should have waited out the Enlightenment!) And there is a heroic minority, of various sizes in various countries, to stand with. I cannot tell the secularizers and the democratizers in the Muslim world that they have no need of Milton and Mill if they have Ibn Taymiya and Ibn Khaldun, and that they must be content to raise their children in a type of polity in which I would not be content to raise my own. I understand that the new can come only out of the old, but Feldman is not commending the new, he is commending the old. His offer of a shinier sharia is just another barter of rights for authenticity. This is not gradualism, it is pessimism. We know now that the cultural and intellectual discontinuity represented by democracy is never total, but we know also that the rupture is real, and that its pleasures cannot be experienced without its pains. For this reason, "Islamic liberalism" is a swindle, because it supports a fantasy of progress without tears. Feldman is shilling for a soft theocracy--for other people, naturally. This is, among other things, hypocritical. Don't Muslims, too, have the right to sin?
By Leon Wieseltier
19 comments
Ugh...does Leon really think that the NYTM readership has the same knowledge of Islam that it does of Xtianity or Judaism? Of course they/we don't - hence the need for the article! This isn't shilling for Islam - it's taking issue with a common interpretation. If you think Feldman is wrong than challenge his argument! Don't just object to the simple fact that the argument has been made in the first place.
- benberger
March 24, 2008 at 5:03pm
Why can't we have the critique without the cattiness? It distracts from the overall point without adding any personality.
- Dave
March 24, 2008 at 9:07pm
While both Islamic and Jewish laws are fundamentally incompatible with modern liberalism, the major difference between them lies in the fact that Islamic law, or a moderate interpretation of it, is considered the ideal form of governance by millions of Muslims. So to understand the complex nature of the Middle East and its future, one must engage in a debate about Sharia- this is not a manifestation of far-left multiculturalism or giving Muslims a "repreive from the rigors of liberalism" , rather it is pure realism. Furthermore it remains possible for Jews to fully embrace liberalism while holding on to their Jewish identity, in other words, the term "secular Jew" is not an oxymoron ( I live in Israel so I know what I'm talking about), unlike the ridiculous notion of a "secular Muslim"- which is essentially a contradiction in terms. So while many Christians are increasingly indifferent to their religion, and Jews have the luxury of being proudly Jewish while completely rejecting the Halacha, we Muslims must choose between two opposing identities and ways of life. It is true that Muslims, like the rest of humanity, are in deep need of the greatest thought Western civilization has produced, but the idea of a Westernized secular Muslim state is simply implausible.
- nadia
March 25, 2008 at 8:13am
Mr. Wieseltier, Another noxious NYT Magazine article to add to your list is "A Cutting Tradition," by Sara Corbett, Jan. 20, 2008, subtitled "Inside a circumcision ceremony for young Muslim girls." Notice the shrewdly innocent language to re-brand the inhuman female genital mutilation: "tradition", "ceremony", "circumcision". And the sanitized accompanying photographs of what is, in fact, a butchery. There is a clear editorial/ideological shift happening in the NYT. And it goes well beyond accomodating the mythical "Muslim moderates". A resurrection of coarse multiculturalism to justify unpalatable practices (Sharia, female gender mutilation) also seems to be happening at the newspaper of record. Does anyone know who in the NYT is pushing this and why? Will the rest of the media follow? Is this the shape of things to come after Bush?
- herman
March 25, 2008 at 8:23am
We in the West simply don't feel all that threatened by Islam. Since the notion of Sharia being imposed on the US seems far fetched, at the very least, we can afford to play these mind games of ignoring the horrific aspects of Islamic law and pretending it's all fine and good. After all, it's "the other" we're talking about. There is a tacit agreement that westerners abusing or killing non-westerners is a crime but non-westerners doing the same to each other can safely be overlooked. So let them stone rape victims, homosexuals and those who convert to Christianity, stamp out free speech, and wage jihad with suicide bombers targeting unarmed civilians. Let them do whatever the elite who interprets Islamic law say should be done, as long as it doesn't affect us. In the meantime, let's congratulate ourselves for our open mindedness and remind everyone that being complimentary towards Islam is the right way to counter the neocon Islamophobia of the world's worst terrorist, George Bush.
- LN
March 25, 2008 at 11:09am
Leon Wieseltier's comments on Noah Feldman's novel comparison between Islamic sharia and Jewish revivalism (halakah) though well-intentioned is wishful thinking at this time. Comparing certain aspects of Islamic sharia to Jewish revivalism (halakah) may have some meaning for Jews today but definitely not for the majority of today's Muslims. "Islam is Islam" said the prime minister of Turkey recently. No doubt in today's fast-moving world there are many secular and cultural Muslims just as there are many secular and cultural Christians and Jews. But the fact remains that given the present Quranic wars and misguided nostalgia for a world wide restoration of a bygone caliphate, Islam in general and the majority of its adherents are far from moderate. In fact the many facets of today's Islam is still stuck in early eighteenth century Wahhabism. Can Islam reform and enter the twenty first century? Perhaps. Christianity which in its day (and even now in some circles) was as fierce in its beliefs as Islam is now and just as intolerant towards those who disagreed with its tenets. But it did reform and is still reforming. But this reform is progressive and not regressive. One hopes that eventually enlightenment will overtake radical Islam and all religions still shackled to the past. But if it does it will be a long way off.
- Jim Guinnessey
March 25, 2008 at 11:36am
I strongly concur. These apologists in the vein of Feldman produce nothing more than somewhat-well-disguised, cowardly hand-wringing.
- HellifIknow
March 25, 2008 at 12:11pm
This article said everything I was thinking when I read Feldman's absurd ode to shariah. Every day brings another one of these articles from the Times, so it's certainly not a coincidence. The most disturbing thing about Feldman's article is that he starts it off with a reference to the foolish Archbishop of Canterbury. If Feldman's point is that Muslim countries would benefit from shariah why bring up the U.K. at all? Does Feldman want shariah implemented in the West, too? Note to Feldman: we don't to live in under shariah. Get it?
- EM
March 25, 2008 at 8:47pm
This piece is not worthy of Leon. It sounds like something Hitchens shot off for Slate in between meals. There is no subtlety here, no awareness of the political and legal context of actual Muslim societies. Where is the sensitivity to the fact that whatever secularism may mean for us, in the Middle East it has not lead to liberalism, decency, the rule of law, accountability, progress and tolerance? Why should we be surprised if people yearn for an untested, fictional, idealized conception of justice that is *theirs* when the alternative is Mubarak, Asad or Arafat? Feldman's thesis has many gaps and inadequacies, but it is not a bad thing to point out that a large part of Islamism's appeal is not *just* the "passionate" but also the "rational" - the desire for accountability and predictability that the rule of law offers. I think it is an error to believe that there is a shari'a out there waiting to deliver this once and for all, but someone as sympathetic to religion as Wieseltier should be wise to the fact that a large part of the appeal of the promise of theocratic order is the rational, the predictable, the comforting, in addition to the passionate and the transcendent.
- afmarch
March 26, 2008 at 7:39am
This is nothing new for Feldman. He seems to have made a career of preaching a type of religio-political accommodationism - not just with Islam - that small-D democrats should feel uncomfortable with. From my reading of him, he is entirely sincere and genuinely well-meaning, but(from someone of his education)incredibly naive: blithely willing to trade away individual rights for some mis-guided notion of religious comity.
- Joe Haney
March 26, 2008 at 9:41am
It is true that most Jews are very liberal and support a very egalitarian laws throughout the world. Egalitarian laws and mores demand such things as:racial equality, interacial relations, womens' rights, a secular society that is not influenced by religion, abortion on demand, legalization of pot and other drugs, the welfare or entitlement system, and other liberal ideas. However, why is it that these ideas are not at all prevalent in Isreal, and why are the Palestinians afforded similar rights?
- Chris
March 26, 2008 at 7:44pm
I think a few of the more irritated comments, and Leon himself, are missing a bit of the point. Feldman isn't saying that sharia is just as good as the American constitution. He is saying that for many, perhaps a majority, of Muslims, it is increasingly how they want to live; and it is so because to them it represents the same higher ideal that the (somewhat more abstract) rule of law has for the West: the notion that rulers and the ruled alike are bound to some kind of principle. He discusses the fact that caliphs and sultans past were considered righteous and acceptable only to the extent that they facilitated the practice of Islam. In the view of many Muslims, this has given way to dictatorship almost everywhere, hypocrisy (think of the whiskey-swilling House-of-Saud patrons of Wahhabism worldwide) and worse. A return to this idealized version of Sharia would thus mean a kind of return to the balance of powers, where rulers take care of basic affairs of state, while ulema function as judges (both interpreting law and ruling on cases). That is the balance of powers he's talking about when he compares it to the constitution. You might not necessarily agree -- and I certainly as hell wouldn't want to live under it -- but it's not idiotic on its face.
- Lane
March 27, 2008 at 4:05pm
Lots of good points. Radical Islam is so far from true liberalism it is nice to see that contrast finally discussed.
- Mark Eichenlaub
March 28, 2008 at 10:09am
I think this piece was well-written and had an appropriate tone for the subject. NYT's and others' unabashed apologetics for Islam have done little to reform the religion and done much to make them look like liars.
- olcottr
March 28, 2008 at 11:18am
All this tells us is that the money we are spending to turn the formerly secular Iraq into a religious Iraq would be far better spent to free us from Arab oil. In fact, to protect Western Civilization and Islam from mutual self-destruction, the west should have as little to do with Islam as possible. Most Chritians (even Catholics) do not seem to understand that Islam is a total way of life, community oriented; not a religion in the same sense that Chritianity is a religion. To really orthodox Jews, secular Jews are not Jews. An old high school orthodox Jewish friend would not drink a glass of water in the home of a secular Jew.
- oxheadone
March 30, 2008 at 3:07am
What sentient soul would prefer an education in the texts of J.S. Mill to those of Ibn Khaldun? What ninny would choose John Locke over Ibn Rushd? There are very few arguments for Islamism; amazingly, Mr. W's brief for the anti-Sharia prosecution cites one of those few talking points that justify a life lived Islamically: their philosophy is more profound. Persecution does breed the highest writing. What an unlearned comment!
- Committed Straussian
April 3, 2008 at 10:09am
It is unbelievable that NY Times has forgotten its own stand on how people should live by liberalism, women rights.., and found out how people want to live under Sharia. It is more like how Regan found Saudis praying the same god, when he got finance for the contras. These articles from NY Times are used against any argument that challenges or opens a discussion on islamism. The passion created by Sharia looking ideas have created wars in atleast 80% of the worlds trouble spots, and every day they attack on civillians ... here or there. NY Times article basically disarms people who had disturbing word against these disturbing maniacs.
- sux
April 7, 2008 at 7:04am
Real people also live where these happens...sometimes they are infidels. http://www.themoviefitna.com/
- This is real at places
April 7, 2008 at 10:42am
The basic issue here is that of 'reason vs revelation'. The Sharia is based on revelation, and it is astonishing that anyone who believes in rationality should support it. It is a distinguishing feature of democracy that laws are formulated by the elected representatives of the people - not dictated by divine (or any other) authority. It is time we grew up and shed outdated ideas of theocracy.
- Vir Narain
July 20, 2008 at 1:24am