Sharia Law

[JPaul]

There has been a lot of talk recently about the interaction between Muslims and, well basically everyone else. The attached link is to a Wikipedia article on Sharia Law. It is often useful to try to understand where other people are coming from and on what they are basing their views.

As an obvious example of something which would not be acceptable to most of us.

Domestic justice

According to most interpretations, authorization for the husband to physically beat disobedient wives is given in the Qur'an. First, admonishment is verbal, and secondly a period of refraining from intimate relations. Finally, if the husband deems the situation appropriate, he may hit her:

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)." (Qur'an 4:34 English translation: Yusuf Ali)

The medieval jurist ash-Shafi'i, founder of one of the main schools of fiqh, commented on this verse that "hitting is permitted, but not hitting is preferable."

That would not be remotely acceptable to my way of thinking, however it is useful to know why others may think it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Freedom_of_Speech

[Carcinus]

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard.

I'd say it was typical of a patriarchal society to associate physical strength with greater importance and control. Because men are stronger physically, they are the masters, not taking into account the values that women have which are different, but no less important, than mens. Because the society is male-dominated and physical strength the greatest demonstration of power and prowess, beating women is somehow considered acceptable.

I don't understand why physical weakness (or possessing less strength than a man) should make a woman the property of her husband/father/brothers, and something to be controlled by fear and pain. However I do acknowledge the fact that there are aspects of other cultures that as an "outsider", being neither muslim nor male, I will never understand.

[JPaul]

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard.

I'd say it was typical of a patriarchal society to associate physical strength with greater importance and control. Because men are stronger physically, they are the masters, not taking into account the values that women have which are different, but no less important, than mens. Because the society is male-dominated and physical strength the greatest demonstration of power and prowess, beating women is somehow considered acceptable.

I don't understand why physical weakness (or possessing less strength than a man) should make a woman the property of her husband/father/brothers, and something to be controlled by fear and pain. However I do acknowledge the fact that there are aspects of other cultures that as an "outsider", being neither muslim nor male, I will never understand.

Indeed and this was probably also the case with most societies. However societies should evolve, in my opinion. As I recall, in the UK a man used to be allowed to beat his wife, provided he used a stick no wider than his thumb. Nowadays you can't even give the kids a bit of a slippering.

It seems to me that Muslims, at least some of them, have decided that stagnation is better and that they should not change anything. One is tempted to suspect that the people who could effect change (the dominant males) are the very ones who do not wish it.

This does not seem to be the case for younger people who are raised in "western" countries. The girls are more likely to grow up thinking, no actually I will get educated, have a career and marry whoever I want. Which seems to me a good thing.

[j2k4]

I'd say it was typical of a patriarchal society to associate physical strength with greater importance and control. Because men are stronger physically, they are the masters, not taking into account the values that women have which are different, but no less important, than mens. Because the society is male-dominated and physical strength the greatest demonstration of power and prowess, beating women is somehow considered acceptable.

I don't understand why physical weakness (or possessing less strength than a man) should make a woman the property of her husband/father/brothers, and something to be controlled by fear and pain. However I do acknowledge the fact that there are aspects of other cultures that as an "outsider", being neither muslim nor male, I will never understand.

Indeed and this was probably also the case with most societies. However societies should evolve, in my opinion. As I recall, in the UK a man used to be allowed to beat his wife, provided he used a stick no wider than his thumb. Nowadays you can't even give the kids a bit of a slippering.

It seems to me that Muslims, at least some of them, have decided that stagnation is better and that they should not change anything. One is tempted to suspect that the people who could effect change (the dominant males) are the very ones who do not wish it.

This does not seem to be the case for younger people who are raised in "western" countries. The girls are more likely to grow up thinking, no actually I will get educated, have a career and marry whoever I want. Which seems to me a good thing.

What you guys said.

I find the fact Islam (the home-country mid-eastern brand, anyway) is distinctly and proudly non-progressive in ways that run counter to the world at large; that is to say, not only the west, is the greatest stumbling block to ending the present calamity.

Insofar as this is true, and Islam remains intransigent, it might be regarded as stagnant and backwards.

Indeed, if Islam does not countenance change or develop tolerance, it will be at odds (war?) with the rest of the world for the foreseeable future.

[ilw]

I find the fact Islam (the home-country mid-eastern brand, anyway) is distinctly and proudly non-progressive in ways that run counter to the world at large; that is to say, not only the west, is the greatest stumbling block to ending the present calamity.

Insofar as this is true, and Islam remains intransigent, it might be regarded as stagnant and backwards.

Indeed, if Islam does not countenance change or develop tolerance, it will be at odds (war?) with the rest of the world for the foreseeable future.

a conservative bitching about a lack of social progress? What happened to the searching for a black cat in a dark room analogy?

[Busyman]

Indeed and this was probably also the case with most societies. However societies should evolve, in my opinion. As I recall, in the UK a man used to be allowed to beat his wife, provided he used a stick no wider than his thumb. Nowadays you can't even give the kids a bit of a slippering.

It seems to me that Muslims, at least some of them, have decided that stagnation is better and that they should not change anything. One is tempted to suspect that the people who could effect change (the dominant males) are the very ones who do not wish it.

This does not seem to be the case for younger people who are raised in "western" countries. The girls are more likely to grow up thinking, no actually I will get educated, have a career and marry whoever I want. Which seems to me a good thing.

What you guys said.

I find the fact Islam (the home-country mid-eastern brand, anyway) is distinctly and proudly non-progressive in ways that run counter to the world at large; that is to say, not only the west, is the greatest stumbling block to ending the present calamity.

Insofar as this is true, and Islam remains intransigent, it might be regarded as stagnant and backwards.

Indeed, if Islam does not countenance change or develop tolerance, it will be at odds (war?) with the rest of the world for the foreseeable future.

[JPaul]

What you guys said.

I find the fact Islam (the home-country mid-eastern brand, anyway) is distinctly and proudly non-progressive in ways that run counter to the world at large; that is to say, not only the west, is the greatest stumbling block to ending the present calamity.

Insofar as this is true, and Islam remains intransigent, it might be regarded as stagnant and backwards.

Indeed, if Islam does not countenance change or develop tolerance, it will be at odds (war?) with the rest of the world for the foreseeable future.

It really is fantastic that you went to the bother of posting that.

I think vidcc is the only other person who does that, but I could be wrong.

[j2k4]

I find the fact Islam (the home-country mid-eastern brand, anyway) is distinctly and proudly non-progressive in ways that run counter to the world at large; that is to say, not only the west, is the greatest stumbling block to ending the present calamity.

Insofar as this is true, and Islam remains intransigent, it might be regarded as stagnant and backwards.

Indeed, if Islam does not countenance change or develop tolerance, it will be at odds (war?) with the rest of the world for the foreseeable future.

a conservative bitching about a lack of social progress? What happened to the searching for a black cat in a dark room analogy?

I was using the word "progressive" as defined by Oxford, Webster, et.al., and not as it is unfortunately and ironically associated with the American liberal movement.

I have no difficulty with things moving forward, Ian; I do, however, have difficulty with the liberal's definition of the word "forward".

[j2k4]

It really is fantastic that you went to the bother of posting that.

I think vidcc is the only other person who does that, but I could be wrong.

No problem here, JP.

He normally posts as if he is asleep, anyway...

[JPaul]

I have no difficulty with things moving forward, Ian; I do, however, have difficulty with the liberal's definition of the word "forward".

Indeed, one man's progress is another man's backward step.

Capital punishment springs to mind.

As does Shania Twain .