Khan misses several key points

Submitted by Jane Adler (United States), Jul 17, 2003 at 12:38

Khan misses the point about sharia law and human rights. He insists that the "best" interpretations of sharia are fully compatible with democracy and human rights. He is saying that, if only the Muslim world had better sharia judges, the application of sharia would be less oppressive.

However, it is not the function of human rights laws to be dependent on the quality of the lawmakers and law enforcers. Good human rights frameworks (such as the US Constitution) are meant to protect people from the WORST possible interpretations and abuses of law. Good human rights laws recognize that judges, juries and lawmakers are not always angels and contain safe-guards against corruption and abuse. Human rights in a secular, liberal democracy do not depend on the quality of lawmakers and law enforcers, but on the quality of the laws themselves.

Moreover, Khan dissembles about sharia's applicability in a democracy. The plain fact of the matter is that, even using the "best" interpretations he promotes so disingenously, sharia law is based on group rights instead of the rights of the individual. For example, under sharia the Muslim man has the most rights and the non-Muslim female has the least rights. This enforcement of group rights over individual rights is simply not compatible with a true and logical reading of 21st Century human rights thinking.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".