Sadakat KadriRezensionen

Not really what the subtitle promised. Kadri writes very well, and seems to have a good command over the subject matter, but it really only skims the surface of actual legal matters. On the other hand, if you know very little about Islam in general, this would be an ideal one stop shop: there's plenty of stuff on the early history, some slightly convoluted/compressed bits, some very well done. I can know name the four traditional schools, at least (Hanafite, Malikite, Shafi'ite, Hanbalite) and have some idea of what they were all up to; I also know just how separate the Shiite tradition is from these Sunni schools. On the other hand, I have no idea whether the differences between those schools have any impact on contemporary Islamic thought or practice, because once Kadri makes the jump from chronological exposition to thematic discussion, he stops bothering to discuss them. The final sections are interesting, but again, I wished for a bit more depth.

In short, Kadri faced a real problem: do you just discuss the intellectual matters at hand, and leave yourself open to the problem of ignoring the actual circumstances the ideas were designed to solve? Or do you lay out the social and cultural causes while not really getting to grips with the ideas? He chose the latter, probably for the better in intellectual terms (i.e., he doesn't act as if only ideas exist) but for the worse as far as the book itself goes (because he wanted to write something inviting and short).

But it was well wroth reading, if only for the evidence he produces for his own argument: that 'fundamentalist' Muslims, from the Wahhabis to the present, lack the humility, intelligence and humanity of the men they claim to be emulating.

The key to this book is the word History. One cannot deny the importance of history to anything but the most revolutionary of processes and one of the anomalies as I see it of Islam is that the more revolutionary the tone, the more important the history in understanding it. In terms of the history, I am intrigued by the gap between, say, 600 and 200 years ago that this account leaves. Nevertheless, a worthwhile read and a good reminder that the concept of what is Sharia is far from well tied down.

Rather tiresome defense of Shari'a law.

The book doesn't aim to be a detailed, scholarly exploration of shari'a-- but ably achieves its goal of delivering a general understanding of the history of the concept and its multiple roles, places, and interpretations.

The story of the criminal trial, from Socrates, an early self-represented defendant, to O.J Simpson, the beneficiary of a bothched prosecution. In between is an ingloruis history of torture, execution, papal Inquisitions, bad evidence and lively barristers. A well-written, interesting, lively history and worth reading for its more serious aspects. Discusses in depth the Nuremberg trials, the Moscow show trials of the '30s and the lack of trial of U.S commanders who authorised torture at Abu Gharib. Wonderful book.

Criminal barrister Alex McBride has chosen to discuss The Trial: A History from Socrates to O J Simpson by Sadakat Kadri, on FiveBooks as one of the top five on his subject - Trial By Jury, saying that:



“…This is a jolly good read and informative about how trials fit together in history and there is a good bit about how the English trial by jury came about. At the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 Pope Innocent III decided you couldn’t ask God to decide on earthly affairs and so the old trial by ordeal was no longer acceptable. They used to put a red hot poker in your hand and then bind it up and if it healed nicely then you were in the clear but if it festered then you were guilty. Of course, if the evidence was weak they might cool the poker off a bit first. But now the authorities had a problem. How would they continue……”



The full interview is available here: http://fivebooks.com/interviews/alex-mcbride