The great 20th century scholar of Islamic Law, G. H. Bousquet, wrote in 1950,
“Islam first came before the world as a doubly totalitarian system. It claimed to impose itself on the whole world and it claimed also, by the divinely appointed Muhammadan law, by the principles of the fiqh, to regulate down to the smallest details the whole life of the Islamic community and of every individual believer….the study of Muhammadan law (dry and forbidding though it may appear to those who confine themselves to the indispensable study of the fiqh) is of great importance to the world today.”
Bousquet’s admonition to study Islamic Law (Shari’a), or at least recognize the profound importance of its influence on basic Muslim conceptions, has perhaps even greater urgency more than a half-century later, in 2006. While electoral processes in the Islamic Middle East may have further enfranchised the Shari’a-based understanding of hurriyya, it is delusional to equate this conception with the freedom espoused by John Stuart Mill in “On Liberty.”
“This is slavery, not to speak one's thought.” ― Euripides, The Phoenician Women
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
The American Thinker: Islamism Not Democratic
Andrew J. Bostom says it is delusional to imagine that states governed by Shari'a law can be anything other than totalitarian: