Ah yes, the elephant in the room. Or so we’ve been led to believe by the MSM and certain Christian fundamentalists (what strange bedfellows they make, huh?). Their argument essentially boils down to the idea that there is a massive deficiency in the core of Islam regarding the status and treatment of women. I believe that this is actually the opposite of reality.
First off, let me explain that my beliefs in regards to this issue are informed not just from actual religious study, but also from extensive travel and residence in worldwide Muslim communities. I’ve lived, worked, and studied amongst Arab, Turk, African, and Asian Muslims. I believe that I have the necessary credentials to speak fairly definitively on this issue. My conclusion regarding this issue is that treatment of women revolves around the societal norms for individual cultures, not their adopted religion(s). Put more simply, if you live in a country that was essentially tribal and medieval when Islam was adopted by the majority of its residents and it has not greatly modernized since that time, your women are probably treated poorly. If you live in a country that has been more open to modernity, or was culturally inclined toward equality of the sexes when Islam was adopted, then the women are probably treated as well or better than women in Western nations. Now, to qualify the above statements, let me make clear that I do NOT regard the standard of treatment for women in the West to be ideal. Indeed, I regard it as only marginally better than that of sub-Saharan Africa or Taliban-era Afghanistan. Yes, I acknowledge that women in the West have equal access to education, employment, and voting rights. No, I do not believe that they are well treated. This may cause more than a few eyebrows to rise, but let’s look at the facts. Rape, domestic abuse, and sexual objectification of women are all categories that Western countries certainly rank in the top 5 in. Combine this with a general self-centered, instant gratification, low moral culture and the seeds are sown for an environment that is hostile to women.
As a side-note to this, look at the representation of women in elected national office in a Muslim nation like Malaysia versus the numbers in similar office in the United States. Malaysia Senate (Upper House) breakdown by gender: 18 Female, 43 Male. 30% of the Malaysian Senate was female, according to this 1999 report: http://www.unescap.org/huset/women/reports/malaysia.pdf#search=%22female%20politicians%20in%20Malaysia%22
In 2006, the US Senate can be broken down by gender as follows: 14 Female, 86 Male. 14% of the US Senate is female. http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30261.pdf#search=%22female%20members%20of%20us%20congress%22
Both in raw numbers and per capita percentages, more women serve in the upper house of the national legislative body in Malaysia, a Muslim nation, than do women in the US.
Islam is not an anti-woman religion. On the contrary, the Quaran and Hadith contain numerous verses promoting the fair treatment of women. Islam demands the moral equality of men and women, although it does clearly delineate the differences between the sexes. A man has certain duties that he must, by religious obligation, perform. Equally, a woman has certain duties that she must, by religious obligation, perform. This is similar to the clear distinction between the sexes made by both Orthodox Jews (Torah and Halacha) and some of the more conservative, traditionalist Christian sects. I think that this difference is critical and the loss of gender identity so praised in today’s Western world is a great source of the moral confusion and evil that occurs every day. In short, yes Islam is, on the face, a patriarchal religion, however in the home and the daily life of the family, it very much stresses the dominance of the matriarch.
For further excellent reading concerning women in Islam (including Muslim feminist attitudes and articles addressing specific issues such as women’s rights, domestic violence, and common misunderstandings about the Quaran’s passages on women), see the following sites:
http://www.islamfortoday.com/feminists_veil.htm
Well, in a free society, they define their own roles, don’t they?
Oops … that second “quote box” shouldn’t be there.
Lance, that follows my thinking pretty closely (hey, great minds think alike, you know?). I never ever want a government to impose a religion on me. At the same time, I never ever want a government to prevent me from embracing a religion. I think Muslims have the right to Sharia law within their own community. I think Orthodox Jews have the right to Halacha within their own community. Etc. Barring impending threat of injury or death (and possibly financial harm, although that’s debatable), government should not interfere in religious practices. If voodo chaps want to sacrifice chickens and goats, by all means let them do so. That’s freedom of religion. If they want to start sacrificing human virgins, then I have a problem with it and government needs to step in. As with most other areas of daily life, the less involved the gubmint is, the better.
In a secular free society you certainly can define your own role. If you are voluntarily self-identifying as a practicing member of a particular religion, then it is assumed that you accept its tenets. Otherwise you’re either an apostate (in which case you shouldn’t bother calling yourself Muslim, Catholic, Jew, etc.) or an idiot (see above suggestion). In our society (I’ll use the US as an example), everyone is free to choose their own religion, or lack thereof. I have no problem with that. If you embrace a more culturally conservative religion, then you are accepting the rules and regulations which it imposes on you with your eyes open. There is no compulsion in religion in either Islam or America.
Many people are absolutely lacking in direction in today’s world. I mean that in both a spiritual and career sense. Young people, fresh out of high school or college don’t necessarily know what they want to do with their lives. A significant number join the military and the order and discipline it gives them helps them to find their place in the world. I think religion plays the same role. If you’re adrift spiritually in a sea of secular temptations and just don’t know how to live your life or connect to God, a good, strict religion is the best thing for you (Baptist Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodox or Masorti Judaism, Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, or Pentecostal Christianity, for example). If you are well grounded emotionally and spiritually and you simply need a specific theological ruleset for your prayers and path to God, then something a bit less strict may be called for (Buddhism, Daoism, Reform Judaism, Methodist Protestantism).
We all have a certain set of self-imposed rules we use to define ourselves. Islam happens to offer one set of rules. Christianity offers another. I don’t see how either violates a person’s ability to define themselves.
Let’s see.
How does a set of rules deny a person the ability to define oneself? You’ve already admitted that for a person to be a true Muslim they must accept sharia. That right there is denial enough in my book. Simply because if sharia is enforced by some authority(limited to a neighborhood or whatever) then I will be ostracized not only by people who question my faith but also by the government that taxes me and subjects me to a set of laws I do not accept. Worse yet those laws are purely religious. That will never happen in the U.S. You may as well say my local diocese should be able to enforce(punitively) acceptance of church doctrine by all Catholics on reproduction, diet, language, observation of sabbath, etc. Including me, presumably, since I attested to being Catholic so I could be buried in my family’s chosen cemetery. Oh, little did I know at the time….
Now I understand why so many treat this topic as verboten. That way madness lies.
I guess I’ll drop out of this thread and leave my favorite site. Certainly a calming place to visit if you rely on MEMRI(which I saw mentioned somewhere here).
Laughingman,
You are still assuming Sharia must be enforced by some arm of the state, neighborhood, whatever. That is not what Omar means by enforcement. I was raised Catholic. My priest and community enforced the rules as to what it meant to be Catholic. My family was not compelled. There were no laws, but the enforcement existed. What Omar is talking about is exactly the way it works in the US. You are reading something into his statement that is not there.
Laughing, please explain to me your idea of religion. I can’t seem to follow your argument here. You agree with me that you cannot honestly be a practicing Muslim without accepting Sharia law, yet in the same breath you claim that this forces a person to deny the ability to define themselves. Do you agree that people voluntarily choose their religion? If so, as long as they understand the laws under which their religion operates, I don’t see any coercion here.
Is your position that a person has a right to call himself Muslim or Jew or Christian and then not accept the tenets of his chosen faith as those tenets deny him the right to self-define? I can’t see how that isn’t a contradictory position. In choosing a religion, you define yourself. You voluntarily establish the parameters under which you will live. Isn’t this the ultimate act of finding and defining one’s own identity?
As far as I can tell Omar, he has the idea that accepting Sharia means to accept an authority who has the ability to force you to conform by some means other than suasion, shame or the other traditional ways of getting people to conform to a set of moral or ethical norms. So every time you mention authority or Sharia he instantly is translating you to mean a legal obligation with force to back it up.
Possibly he is right and I am just missing it, but I don’t think that is what you are advocating. Correct me if I am wrong.
Outside of Iran or Saudi Arabia or any of the other openly Salafist, theocratic nations, Sharia law has no secular power. It may have secular “influence,” but the police aren’t going to break down your door in Indonesia if your neighbors think you’re eating pork.
In secular democracies, imams theoretically have about as much enforcement power as Catholic priests. They can give you dirty looks, refuse you entrance to the local masjik, maybe even turn your neighbors against you. But they can’t call the police or the army and have them arrest you for violating sharia. Can they make life uncomfortable? Yes. Can they take legal action against you? No.
Unless I’m reading that wrong Omar is saying sharia should be paramount in a Muslim community. That only happens with the acquiescence(sanctioning) of the government.
I did no such thing. I couldn’t disagree with that statement any more than I already do. I’m not your typical knee-jerk libertarian who despises all things religion. If anything I envy religious people because they do something I can’t. I would never judge the belief of another person. I know my own and nothing else. You were the one who said a Muslim must accept sharia. I was the one shocked to see a Muslim admit that since it implicitly accepts my opinion that it is an existential problem that practically no one is willing to address.
There is no coercion but the choice if a false one. It is subject to the approval of you and anyone else who defines faith in Islam differently. Practically everyone in my family is a devout Catholic yet each couple has 2.5 kids. I can’t recall the last time one of the elders stood up at a family picnic and accused them of obvious heresy.
Yes, I do. And I’d be surprised if 90% of the non-Muslim world wouldn’t agree with me. Christian literalists would probably make up 0.001% of the remainder.
Christianity has been contradictory since atleast the Reformation. And modernity is thankful.
Not if it comes in the shape of a cookie cutter. Which is exactly what an all-or-nothing interpretation of any religion really is.
Laughing, does government sanction Jewish Beit Din courts? Does it sanction Catholic confirmations or adult conversions? All three regularly happen in the US on any chosen weekend. How about divorce? A Jewish divorce involves a Get. A Catholic must (should) seek annulment. Again, does the United States government sanction such things? The exact same thing applies to Muslims and Sharia. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. There isn’t a double standard for Muslims. Either there is implicit government sanction of all religious activity or there isn’t.
Granted Orthodox Jews, Quakers, Mormons, and Amish make up a very small portion of the non-Muslim world, but they are just as firm in enforcing their religious tenets on their community as moderate Muslims. If you live in the old Orthodox Jewish communities in Chicago or NY and you claim to be an Orthodox Jew, yet you drive to synagogue, eat pork, and marry a gentile, you are going to face some consequences. See my earlier comment about people self-identifying as a member of a particular religion, then ignoring its beliefs.
Christianity has been contradictory since at least the second century anno Domini. If modernity is grateful, then it’s an imbecile. See the history of Henry VIII of England and his successors, the Thirty Years War, the plight of the Huguenots in France, the great schism of 1054, the history of the Fourth Crusade, etc. I have no particluar stake in the history and development of Christianity yet even I sorely wish that such things had never happened.
Laughing you are welcome to this view of religion. It’s the one shared by most cafeteria Catholics and secular Jews. I renounce it, however. People who “play” at religion give a bad name to those who take their faith seriously. They stand for nothing but abject hypocrisy and base foolishness. I despise Nancy Pelosi for her hypocritical faux “Catholicism” as it resembles nothing any reasonably devout Catholic would recognize as Catholicism. The same hypocritical tag can be applied to John Kerry. Either you accept your religion as it is or you find another religion. There are over a hundred worldwide religious sects. Surely everyone can find one “cookie-cutter” as you say that they agree with and if not, just be an atheist or agnostic. I’m paraphrasing C.S. Lewis here, but if you believe in God, then religion should be the most important thing in your life. If you don’t, then religion shouldn’t be any part of your life. Any middle ground between the two is self-deluding folly at best and deliberate hypocrisy at worst.
Hm. I’m an agnostic since becoming apostate from the religion of my birth (mormonism). Allow me to offer both an insider’s and an outsider’s perspective.
From an insider’s perspective, what I saw of the LDS Church before leaving it was a set of laws-above-the-laws which were enforced through peer pressure and nothing else. Very strict, but the worst consequence you could expect from violating the religious laws was being treated badly by the people who claimed to love you the week before. That sounds very much like the way Omar is describing sharia. However, I do have one question based on this experience – if we (as mormons) saw someone in our neighborhood acting in a way we didn’t find acceptable, we accepted it anyway because the choices of non-mormons were none of our concern. It might have saddened us, but we took no action because we only expected mormons to behave in a mormon way. I am led to wonder, in a predominantly Muslim neighborhood, what would happen if my (theoretical) daughter ignored sharia taboos? How would she be treated by the neighbors?
Speaking from an outsider’s perspective (of all religion), what I find most disturbing about the organized legions of God (of any flavor) is the presumption of guilt in the absence of proven innocence. It’s the implied debt. Did you ask Mohammed to go to the Mountain? Christ to get himself nailed to a cross? Moses to make his Sinai top 10 list? How long does a culture have to pay before it’s allowed to say “We do these things because they work for us. We like to do it this way. That is our only reason.” Must a religion promise heaven or threaten hell? Is it not enough to say “The way we look at it…” and allow everyone else to say the same, each according to their own?
I don’t happen to think having clearly defined gender roles is a bad thing; but I also allow for exceptions to the rule.
I am tolerant and understanding of my religious neighbors; as I hope they are tolerant and understanding of me. I also hope they grasp that I’m not going to play a round of carrot-and-stick with their diety of choice. For me spiritual awareness is a private, individual journey, founded upon precepts of unconditional love. For the Muslim, the Christian, the Jew, the Buddhist, the Hindu, the …. well – fill in the blank. In fact, the only religion I can’t tolerate are the destroyer cults who promote unconditional hate.
I will never understand people who think I need assasination (of identity or otherwise) because of my beliefs – and that’s how I tell fundamentalism from faith. The faithful don’t need to convert me to believe.
Anyway, that’s how it looks from the outside.
-Gil
Gil,
That is a very thoughtful comment and pretty much sums up my views.
I admire CS Lewis and I don’t consider his views a large threat to me. If that is how you define it, and it makes sense to me, I don’t see Laughingman’s issue from a political standpoint. As long as state sanction is only to the extent that you describe in your answer then I am happy with that. As long as the consequences are as Gil illustrated, I am happy with that, in fact Nozick would be happy with that. If Clerical rule is merely the rule of the heart and social inclusion within that community, then that is the way it is supposed to work.
By community, I do not mean a neighborhood or city or any other such physical space, I mean the community of believers. I assume that is what Omar is referring to. If that isn’t okay with those of us of a more secular bent, then we have defined Muslims, or any group with some kind of moral or ethical code, as unwelcome. Maybe that is what some want, but it is a recipe for strife, that is the real intolerance, not the religious among us. It is unlikely to lead to tolerance of the secular or religious minorities amongst the religious either.
Gil, I’m sorry to hear that you had a poor experience with the religion of your childhood. I am happy that you seem to be at peace about the experience and have moved on rather than judge all religions against that experience.
In answer to your question, why would a Muslim ever enforce our religious laws on a non-Muslim? As a rule, we don’t care whether you eat pork or not, drink alcohol or not, or worship on Sunday or Saturday or Friday. Outside of fundamentalist Muslim communities, we don’t really care what others do as long as they don’t involve us. Salafis and their ilk may demand that Sharia and dhimmitude be enforced on non-Muslims, but to me that violates one of our cardinal beliefs which is that there is no compulsion in religion. I look at this as a two way street: we don’t stop you drinking beer, you don’t make us go to church on Sunday.
I disagree with this view. God sent his prophets to us because of His great love for all mankind. Moses (PBUH) was the greatest of the Hebrew prophets; he gave us a set of laws by which to live. Issa (Jesus) (PBUH) taught us to love each other as we love ourselves and that the law can sometimes blind us in our search for God. Prophet Muhammad (SAW) melded and completed the religions of the Jews and Christians and gave us God’s final revelation to mankind. All of them did this out of faith and obedience, not out of a desire to impose guilt on the world for generations. Jews teach order, discipline, and obedience to the law and tradition. Christians teach love, self-sacrifice, and faith in God. Islam teaches all of the above plus, for lack of a better term in English, awe toward and submission to God. We need feel no guilt because of the trials and tribulations of the prophets; they walked their paths gladly. We honor them as God’s beloved, we don’t feel the need to follow their teachings out of a sense of guilt or burden.
I’m not sure what your feelings are toward the LDS Church, Gil, but have a look at this:
http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_4154663
I’ve also seen some other editorials and news reports in the past showing some ongoing positive dialog between two of the world’s most misunderstood religions. My hope is for this positive trend to continue.
Hear Hear!
Mormons and Muslims getting together to help people who need help. That’s an interpretation of Matthew 18:20 that makes sense to me.
That, Omar, is perhaps the most mature statement of religious devotism I’ve heard. May your wisdom be shared by many.
-Gil
Lol! I appreciate your compliment, Gil. The religious should never feel obligated to their beliefs out of any sense of shame, guilt, or burden. That sounds too close to compulsion for me. If religion is not adopted voluntarily and wholeheartedly, it serves no purpose. Now, I must away to a haberdasher as my head has swollen several sizes and my hats no longer fit.
Sorry for the long delay in responding.
You are comparing apples to oranges. Certain sects of some religions regulate membership but that bears no authority over others of the same religion yet of another sect. I see nothing in your comments that would allow for such diversity. You said sharia should be allowed in Muslim communities. If I am a Muslim in your community who wants nothing to do with sharia are you going to exempt me? Is there anything that prevents Muslims from enacting the benign, social strictures other religions practice?
Given the statistics on divorce in the U.S. there must be daily excommunication proceedings. So little time and so much persecution to do.
Does the synagogue or diocese enforce its rules outside their respective places of worship? Didn’t think so.
There is no double standard. There are two different standards. One that tolerates heterodoxy and one that does not. What dress they wear is immaterial.
Yes, individuals will judge you a heretic and shun you. It won’t be dictated from religious authority and enforced by the rabbi.
I think my comment covers that.
Really? So, the history of Catholicism is an unbroken string from Rome to Westphalia? That must be why there are so many secular governments where once a “holy” empire reigned.
Pre-Reformation history has no impact on what resulted from it. And only an imbecile would argue that there was any more significant period in the history of Catholicism.
I’m indifferent about historical events. Arguing alternative history is an abstraction.
Those two groups make up the vast majority of my fellow citizens. I like to think there’s a reason for that aside from laziness.
Hence the problem. The choice really is between “cafeteria-style” religion and doctrinaire orthodoxy.
How so? Does seeing Bill Clinton or George Bush at the head of a pulpit detract from everyone else who stands there? Does 1 pedophile priest devalue all priests? Some might answer ‘yes’ to both but I’m fairly sure the cafeteria worshippers and secularists would not.
That is the script. I guess it all depends on who is reading it. Personally, I don’t find anyone’s religion worthy of emotion on my part. I couldn’t care less about it.
Thanks. I know your view is absolutist in this respect atleast. But your problem is your own. Those of us who are not absolutists are quite content to live and let live.
Funny. From my sparse reading of Lewis he seemed to struggle an awful lot with religious issues while he was estranged from the church. Him trying to fit the death of his wife into the square hole of religion being particularly poignant. I guess if he’d have followed his own advice I wouldn’t have that book on my shelf.
Sorry if you take this the wrong way but…I don’t see how that line of thinking is any different to that which starts all religious conflict. Like I’ve said Catholicism and its offshoots live with heterodoxy. I hope Islam can as well.
By the way, no one has done anything to detract from the conundrum. As seen in Britain, a lack of sharia is blamed for terrorism. Yet if Britain did have sharia they’d be taking the extremists from the margins and making them a valid opposition group. Shahid Malik in his Times piece skated around any implications but atleast he started a substantive debate. Let’s hope he isn’t killed for that.
The short answer is yes, and no.
You are still confusing Omar saying he feels something is wrong personally as opposed to enforcing it with some kind of state power and that seems evident throughout your post. You are misreading Omar’s personal belief and an Imam or priests right or obligation to apply social sanction with state power or violent mob enforcement.
Evident? I think you’ve brought that up and I addressed it. Sharia doesn’t have to be codified into common law for it to be endorsed by the state. I think the source of the misunderstanding so far is what is meant by “Muslim community”. If that means “mosque” then fine. If that means “Dearborn, Michigan” then, sorry, no.
And I don’t think I’m misreading Omar. He is holding a hard orthodox line on sharia. It is a part of Muslim religious identity and not up for discussion. And apparently the question of “what is sharia?” is not up for discussion either. Moderate/personal sharia–good. Brutal/atavistic sharia–bad. Where the bright line separating the two is drawn is up to…who? I’ve no idea.
Laughingman, I’ve kind of lost track of where we are at in this discussion and I seem to have lost the train of thought that you were advancing.
To be clear, let me make sure that I understand your position without putting words in your mouth:
1. Religions may, in fact, have unique sets of laws which their practicioners are welcome to abide by.
2. Enforcement of those laws beyond the individual believer’s conscience is a VERY BAD THING.
Is that an accurate statement of your position? If so, then may I assume that you do not support the concept of organized religion as it exists currently?
If the above is inaccurate in some way, I certainly apologize and ask for further clarification. Again, I’ve sort of lost track of where we are at, so I accept full responsibility for misunderstanding your arguments.
As far as I understand Omar means Mosque or within families and community of believers. That is among people, not a physical space. So, if I am obviously not behaving as a Muslim, I can expect that community of believers to express disapproval of my actions. That does not mean beatings, it might in some instances mean ostracism. At that point I would be an apostate. That would possibly bring great shame on me. It would not mean I would be dragged before a court and have my hands cut off or be killed.
Am I wromg Omar.
As the self admitted agnostic in this thread, if he will not take that position, I will.
Gil, agnosticism has, for many, been the first step on the road to true faith. C.S. Lewis would be an excellent example. Congratulations!
Lance, I’m completely confused as to what Laughigman means at this point. I don’t necessarily want to agree or disagree with anything until I understand what his position is.
You may find that for some it is also the destination. Nonetheless, as it harms me not, if your hope for my conversion gives you joy, then hope. I do not, however, advise that you wait for it.
Pingback: Lige’s Agent Travel Trip Review and Air Fare Ideas » Blog Archive »
Pingback: Callie’s Air Travel Review and Airfare Comments » Blog Archive »