Shariah is not savage, people are

Our old friend Noah Feldman has a new article in The New York Times Magazine exploring the subtly of shariah law. I know that Feldman is exceedingly bright, and as someone raised as an Orthodox Jew and a law professor, he is very well placed to explore this topic and translate to a Western audience. There are many resemblances between Rabbinical Judaism and Islam when it comes to civil jurispurdience. But details do matter to me, and Feldman oversimplifies the nature of Islam and underestimates its boundary conditions in my opinion. For example, he says, "All Muslims would agree, for example, that it prohibits lending money at interest -- though not investments in which risks and returns are shared; and the ban on Muslims drinking alcohol is an example of an unequivocal ritual prohibition, even for liberal interpreters of the faith." On the point about the banning of interest, the way it seems to work out is that Muslims follow the letter of the law without honoring the spirit. The readership should know that I would think. In regards to alcohol, the prohibition is not universal to Islam. The heterodox Bektashi Sufi order includes wine consumption as part of its ritual, as do their cousins the Alevis of Turkey. This does not mean this practice is normal, but unlike the Druze these groups are considered Muslim, if marginally and grudgingly so, it likely exceed at least 10 million numbers.

So the article is worth reading. But be careful about taking it too literally....