Daniel Pipes is in the right !

Submitted by Anne-Marie Delcambre (France), Mar 21, 2009 at 14:37

Sani wrote « Daniel Pipes is correct in his assessment that interpretation of shari'a according to the needs of the day has precedences in islamic history. But the biggest support for his theory, ironically, come from no less that the Ayatollah Khomeini himself"

I must say something about the position adopted by Daniel Pipes :

1) In traditional Islam, the jurists (fuqahâ') maintained their independance. The jurists are independant scholars. They elaborated and they interpreted the Islamic law without control by the state. Eminent lawyers ( for example Ibn Hanbal) want to live by the Shari'a but they say that the caliph has no the right to legislate).

2) In traditional Islam the Shari'a is not codified

3) In traditional Islam the Shari'a applies to persons – not to the territory.

A non-Muslim living in a Muslim country need not follow the Shari'a. Daniel Pipes wrote " the key is who you are, not where you are".

In traditional Islam, the Shari'a not accept territory as the basis of juridiction.

In "Modern" Sharî'a , state interests take priority.

"Modern" Sharî'a is a Western code.

The Ottoman Empire codified the Sharî'a;

The European rulers codified the Sharî'a.

Independant Muslim states codified the Sharî'a (But in Saudi Arabia we find traditional Sharî'a: the Sacred law is not a Western code.°)

Anne-Marie Delcambre, Islamic scholar

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".