Analytical Brilliance

I thought Professor Noah Feldman's piece " Why Shariah" in the New York Times magazine was a fascinating read . His analytical erudition sparkles with an in depth understanding of the factual history/emotional/spiritual behaviour/ interactions & realistic reactions that govern the intimate relationship religion(in this case muslim law) and common law might enjoy if they understood each other .
There is so much depth in this article I haven't fully absorbed yet.
The way the whole religous structure system is based on their understanding of the law and how they came to understand what should be considered law is fascinating, as is the juxtaposition of English common law and Islamic law.

For instance this quote "As for sexism, the common law long denied married women any property rights or indeed legal personality apart from their husbands. When the British applied their law to Muslims in place of Shariah, as they did in some colonies, the result was to strip married women of the property that Islamic law had always granted them — hardly progress toward equality of the sexes".

I need to read this piece a few times to understand all the nuances/underlying stances and undertones involved , it's definitely unadulterated analytical brilliance.