Islam and Women
The Poet Omar on Aug 18 2006 at 2:52 am | Filed under: Culture, Foreign affairs, Religion and theology, The Poet Omar's Page
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
http://www.islamfortoday.com/women.htm
http://www.islamdoor.com/viewart.php?id=51
Sphere: Related Content78 Responses to “Islam and Women”
Trackback URI | Comments RSS
Heh,
You are trying to set off a fire storm.
Isn’t that what blogging is about? ;)
My glee knows no bounds.
Omar!
Although I agree with your larger point, that the treatment of women largely correlates to the tribal backwardness of the community in question. But I do take umbrage at your characterization of western women being barely better off than Afghan women under the Taliban. It’s not just about “rights” to education, suffrage, etc. Here in the west, women aren’t beaten by agents of the state in the street with a broken-off car antenna for having a hole in their burka.
Do we have high rape rates here in the west? Sure. But in too many places rape isn’t even a crime. Rape is a way of life for women there. India alone offers compelling evidence amongst Muslims and Hindus alike that the problem we’re dealing with is more an issue of primative tribal backwardness than any religious doctrine. Now it’s my understanding that in the Middle East and Asia, where Muslims make up a social majority, Islam remains largely unreformed. Now am I wrong? Are you telling me that of all the places you lived and studied, they all share your reformed, enlightened view of women?
yours/
peter.
Snarky because I’ve rewritten this several times and I cant get the tone right…
So it’s OK that the majority of the Muslim world mistreats women because the western world doesn’t treat women perfectly?
No, no, allow me to clarify. I don’t excuse the poor treatment of women in the various second and third world nations of the world simply because of their poor treatment here in the West. I absolutely condemn the horrific acts of violence perpetrated against women both here and in other nations. Simply being slightly better than other nations is no excuse, however.
Bains, I don’t know that the MAJORITY of the Muslim world treats women poorly. I would agree that the MAJORITY of the Arab and African world treats women poorly. There is a difference.
Peter, no absolutely not. Many of the Arab and African communities did hold a less than enlightened view of women. However, I found highly diverse attitudes on this topic which leads me to the conclusion that Islam is not the problem. Local culture is. As to beatings with car antennas by government agents, yes that certainly has happened as a result of government intervention or at least silent approval in some non-Western nations. Here, though such a thing happens just as frequently although it’s not a government agent doing the beating; it’s a boyfriend or common law husband. And we all know how likely the beaten woman is to press charges. Different motivation, same result.
Confused.
Tell me again why this is done? I think it starts with an ’s’ and ends with a ‘haria’.
Laughingman,
My limited understanding, I am sure Omar has much more to say, is that there is nothing in the Koran to justify the photo you link to. I would liken it to the Puritan’s burning witches. People justified the action as enforcing God’s law, but it doesn’t mean I have to now say Christianity is itself to blame for such actions.
To put it another way, you need to separate the acts of some Christians and Muslims from the faith’s themselves.
Yes, I fully expected the “misinterpretation” excuse to be used. Though given the fact that the two largest purveyors of sharia(Iran and Saudi Arabia) seem to share that “misinterpretation” I don’t see how it matters. Also, the fact that Iran and Afghanistan were hardly backward cesspools prior to their Islamic reformations kind of disabuses Omar’s theory of tribal/cultural influences when it comes to the denigration of women. As does the fact that cultures from such disparate lands as Asia, Persia, Arabia, and Africa tend to share similarly inspired “misinterpretations” of Islamic law.
But I have to say what offended me(or atleast my libertarian sensibilities) more is the unexplored logical conclusion of Omar’s post–taking away rights of women in order to protect them. It’s entirely chauvinistic and paternalistic. And definitely entirely un-libertarian. But we’ve already got one active purge so mine will have to wait til another day. Someone add Omar to the Townhouse, err, Greenwald, err, Mona list for me.
Please don’t take the above as me calling Omar “chauvinistic and paternalistic”. I simply meant that if you find egalitarian treatment of women harmful to them in some way then you must, necessarily, advocate for changes that are chauvinistic and paternalistic. I don’t see any way around that given the less-free-but-safer premise.
I am not sure how that is an excuse. If you are asking me whether in the name of Islam there are terrible things being done, who is arguing otherwise. I am only saying that I have seen nothing to make me believe that the Koran necessarily has to be interpreted that way and millions upon millions of Muslims do not. Have you read Omar’s links?
As for the un-libertarian aspect, well, Omar is religious and I am not, but I don’t see how people live their personal lives has anything to do with libertarianism, which defines the relationship between man and state. Omar isn’t arguing (at least not here, he might later) that the state should enforce Islamic Law.
Given that in the forties Spain was the largest state to make Catholicism the touchstone for how the state is ruled, does that mean that was the face of Catholicism and that all Catholics had to be ashamed of their faith. Ashamed of many of its practitioners, yes. The faith itself, no. The actions of states such as Iran or Saudi Arabia do not define what Islam is to Omar or many millions of other Muslims.
Is it? Or is it more a function of the freedom they have?
Equality, exposure and full participation. Lack of equality and limited exposure and lack of full participation.
Can’t say I’m buying into this yet, Omar.
Why do you insist on bringing up Christianity? I couldn’t care less about either religion.
It’s an excuse because it does not address the key problem. I don’t care how active or accepted Omar is he cannot negate Iran and Saudi Arabia. One of those things is not like the others. People can take all the comfort they want that individuals are somehow more representative than entire nation-states but it doesn’t change reality.
And what exactly are these “millions upon millions” doing? Are they actively trying to counteract the funding and scholarly support given by Iran and Saudi Arabia? Or are they arguing against progressive reforms, such as those in Turkey(which refused sharia last I looked)?
The relationship between man and state in an Islamic state is sharia. You can’t divorce the two. And when anyone tells me that Islam and women are anything other than oil and water I’m not going to willingly ignore the elephant in the room.
As for Spain, no, it didn’t mean that it was the face of Catholicism. But it did certainly serve as a good argument in favor of secular government. Same as sharia in Iran and Saudi Arabia. If one is going to argue that Islam can benefit women then it’s going to take more than crime statistics.
laughin, I don’t now nor have I ever suggested that sharia law be applied to anyone who is not VOLUNTARILY Muslim. As Lance said above, Sharia is not the problem here. If it were, we’d see the type of tragedy you mention repeated on a wide scale in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc. Instead it’s confined to Saudi Arabia and Iran. Possibly Taliban-era Afghanistan and a few African nations. That tends to deflate your theory about sharia a bit. The thing that absolutely pops it is female genital mutilation. Widespread and ongoing practice in Africa (including Muslim parts of Africa). Not seen in Arab nations, Turkey, Iran, Malaysia, etc. If Muslims are in fact practicing such a despicable tradition, it clearly can be shown to have nothing to do with Islam. The same thing applies to be buried alive, beheaded, stoned, etc. These acts are part of the dominant national culture, not religion.
McQ, I think my link showing female participation in government in Malaysia is pretty indicative of the fact that they enjoy equal rights and full participation in government and daily life. Malaysian women are offered all of the freedoms which Malaysian men have. At the same time, they are offered a level of respect due to their gender which is partially based on Islamic teachings. This respect is almost totally absent in the West, save for a few small social groups. Malaysian women, as a rule, aren’t subject to the violence and sexual objectification that women in the US must deal with. They also enjoy the same level of freedom as women in the US. You tell me which situation if preferable.
Yes, but YOU are not the problem.
There are political movements in all those countries to bring about retrograde sharia. India is the birthplace of the Deobandis that incorporated itself into the Taliban. And the offshoots of India(Bangladesh, Pakistan, Jammu, Kashmir) all either have or have recently flirted with sharia. The PBB and PKS in Indonesia are stronger today than they were a decade ago. The Pan-Malay Islamic Party and Barisan Nasional are both predominant in Malaysia. And, just for the record, all the parties listed are populist in their appeal. So, this “misinterpretation” may be less of an aberration than some would believe.
And Aceh, and Darfur, and Somalia, and Nigeria, and the NWF, and Iraq, and….
Possibly?! I think RAWA provided enough documentary evidence to remove any doubt.
No, it doesn’t. You’d have to argue against thousands and thousands of Imams and Ayatollahs who disagree with your view of sharia. The more conservative the authority of sharia the more barbaric it is.
Why does that pop it? Must I explain away all cultural and social norms to condemn sharia? What’s next? Sufi moderations exonerate all of Islam? I don’t see what one has to do with the other. Authorities are not using social tradition to bolster their use of whips and stones.
Omar is entirely right about women in Malaysia. But it should be noted that those most vehemently opposed to and actively trying to subvert those freedoms are
drumroll
Islamists and their party organs. The things protecting them are secular government and a constitution that is supreme law.
Turkey is also a good example though, like Malaysia, they’ve shielded their government and rights from religion.
Well your argument would be great if it were accurate, Omar. But rape has been trending up in Malaysia.
And, Islam has been part of the problem:
In fact, this particular story is almost diametrically opposed to your claim concerning Islam:
If that’s not bad enough, Islamic lawyers agree with the mufti:
It’s rather hard, given that, to buy into the claim that Malaysian women have equal rights and are treated with equal respect as men. And given this evidence it is certainly difficult to believe a claim which says it is because of Islam.
Exactly laughing man. You are throwing in the face of Omar that Islamic political movements which Omar strongly opposes are wrong. If that is your point move on. That clerics and mufti’s with whom Omar is at odds proclaim horrendous doctrines does not mean Islam itself is an issue, but how many governments and clerics use it.
Exactly! Where did you hear Omar defend the Islamists? Omar believes in secular government.
Once again, if you have read anything of Omar’s you know he doesn’t feel it does. It does however exonerate those Sufi moderates, doesn’t it?
Exactly, who are you arguing with? Given that Turkey is a Muslim country it then stands to reason that Islam and secular governance can co-exist. If you want to argue that far too much of the Muslim world wants or accepts a quasi or overtly religious state you will get no argument from me, and from everything I can see Omar as well. Your argument is with someone else.
I will say that despite my agreement with most of what Omar says here, I’ll part with him on the idea that the women of the Islamic world are treated better on averaqe, even in Malaysia. However, that is a personal judgement, not a political one.
However, I do think he has answered my question from last week about how women should be treated under Islamic teachings rather well.
Oh laughing man, I only mentioned Christians as an example, you can substitute any group you want, including atheists, they all have horrible governments which operated in their name. The Islamic fascists are the enemy. Men and women who wish to pursue their lives as Muslims in a secular democracy are not. He no more has to bear the sins of the Taliban than you do of atheistic communists.
People such as Omar do have a responsibility in my mind, and that is two fold. If they truly are opposed to Islamism, they are the ones most able to affect change within the Islamic community to support that opposition. Maybe we can do something about that here. Try reading some of our earlier discussions for some ideas. Secondly, they can help us understand their beliefs so that we can more effectively engage the Islamic community in a secular democracy. Hysterical attacks which equate defending Islam as the same as defending the Saudi, Iranian, Sudanese regimes or the Islamists in general will surely make it difficult for him to help us understand Islam.
Progressive Muslims have all my support and I readily grant they are our only short-term hope but they are not the only face of Islam. And from my perspective the activists I favor are dwarfed by our adversaries.
How about…nowhere? Nowhere did I see Omar defend the Islamists. But Omar did argue that Islam can be a beneficial force in society. He picked Malaysia to support his thesis. I perused Malaysia’s constitution regarding the judiciary and saw nothing about the supremacy of Islam. Therefore, I and, I presume, any other reasonable person, would conclude their rights and freedoms are secular in nature. They are certainly an Islamic state but nowhere do they act like one. Hence the comedy of the Islamists crowing for sharia while the ruling faction claims sharia already exists.
Of course. I thought I made it clear that it was as absurd to say such a thing as it was to use cultural factors against one group while excusing them in another.
Definitely. And it saddened me to see Sufis align themselves with the Islamic Courts Union in Somalia. Oh well…it must have been something in the water.
Certainly they can co-exist. Whether that is likely or not without an army sworn to enforce that co-existance I’ve much less faith. It’s a conundrum. In a state that is predominately Muslim where the government is atleast moderate doesn’t that, by definition, set up all opposition groups as utterly secular, issue-oriented, or Islamist? Maybe I should ask that in the other thread. But I don’t think there’s a good answer for that.
I don’t want any argument. But if the topic of women and Islam and governance is going to be discussed I’d atleast like to see an admission or footnote.
It’s a personal judgement that has political ramifications.
No disagreement on the rest.
I guess I didn’t see Omar’s post as justifying state action. The argument was to the role Islam can have for women as a voluntary faith. I don’t think Omar is arguing they are the only face of Islam, I think he is pointing out they exist. He is trying to say the Islamic world has evidence that it is not an unalloyed bad on womens issues.
Which is why Omar looks to Asia for inspiration as to what a predominantly Muslim country can accomplish. Unfortunately those freedoms are being threatened by the Salafist’s who are attacking the government through terrorism and clerics, often sponsored by Saudi Arabia, attacking the Islamic tradition in Indonesia. I don’t know if you have had a chance to visit my post from earlier, “Approaching Islam,” but there is a link there for libforall, a muslim organization that has 35 million members if my memory is right, that promotes democracy, a liberal economic order, religious freedom and other rights that we hold dear.
At first glance I would vote for their platform over either the Republican or Democratic platforms in this country. I just think that Omar is on the right side of these issues generally, and many in the Muslim world are too. Throwing these abhorrent regimes in their face and saying that when these fascist regimes do what they do, that it invalidates their own interpretation of Islam is wrong.
I appreciate your last comment, but I think too many of us take any defense of Islam as a defense of Islamists or denial of the problems of the Muslim world. That makes it very hard for a Muslim to try and stand with us. They are required not just to condemn the Islamists, but the faith they hold dear, in fact they have to condemn themselves. It takes a lot of patience, good will and courage to venture forth on these topics hoping to start a dialogue. I encouraged him to do so, it would have been easy to say it isn’t worth the effort. I encourage you to continue asking your questions, but remember to understand who he is, not use him as a proxy for your complaints about Salafists or the heirs to Khomeini.
Then again how many things are truly an unalloyed bad? Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Best of luck to Libforall but the problem isn’t one of Western perception. The problem is an internal one inherently distinct from the West.
Well, if one is discussing women in Islam without a mention of sharia my radar goes off. And I wasn’t very reassured when Omar made reference to only applying sharia to voluntary Muslims. I would think any application would be odious to libertarians. But maybe I’m just being Manichean.
Well, a one-sided case isn’t a very good basis for a dialogue. That is unless you honestly think the problem is with your audience. Why else would we need to be convinced of something as patently obvious as Islam isn’t all bad?
I wasn’t using Omar for anything. He colored around the edges and left the rest of the picture untouched. If that’s not begging for disagreement I don’t know what is. But I think the point’s been kicked enough already.
Laughing man,
But that wasn’t the point of the post. It was in response to the question:
He answered according to how he believes it should be interpreted. My objection was to the photo. It in no way argued against his interpretation of Islamic teaching. It argued to the beastiality of the Salafists. No argument there.
So if my wife and I choose to observe a strict baptist, man is the head of the household, lifestyle we cannot? That is voluntary. What is un-libertarian about that?
Sorry, but when I read “range of views” I don’t think one view.
Actually, the photo argued to the coupling of a nation-state and sharia. It just so happens that that nation-state is the prime mover in Shi’a political Islam. And identical things happen in the nation-state that is the prime mover in Sunni political Islam.
Again, I don’t understand why you bring up another religion. But I’ll play along and just say: it depends. It depends on whether or not you get to force your neighbor to bash his Baptist wife’s head in with a rock if she offends you or, god forbid, sleeps with your Baptist wife. Who signs the checks or drives the family truckster I care a little less about. Sharia is not home economics.
But my example is appropo of what Omar is talking about. Yours is appropo of what a Salafist would talk about. I brought up religion to keep the discussion on a similar example.
Also, Omar wasn\’t talking about one view, at least not in context of our ongoing discussion. He is talking about the range of what he considers acceptable Muslim behavior.Hence his comments and the links to various views. You want to bring in behavior that he would consider unacceptable and act as if his beliefs or discussion is endorsing that, or at least that is the implication I am getting. I apologize if I am off base, but I have my dense moments.
The only view I saw was that Islam could benefit women. Was there something else I missed? It certainly wasn’t the obverse–Islam could harm women.
I somehow doubt a Salafist would make an effort to point out a disconnect between Islamic states and women’s rights. Quite the opposite in fact I’d expect them to minimize it or deny outright that it exists.
I disagree. It was a very weak attempt at syllogism:
Malaysia elects more women than the U.S and has less crime against women.
Malaysia is Islamic.
QED
Islam is atleast as good for women as Western egalitarianism.
It’s hokum. Sorry, but it is.
Well, unfortunately, there’s a joker buried in that deck.
Let’s consider some hypotheticals. First, a 16-year-old girl from a sharia-governed family, who wants to date a non-Muslim. She is prepared to abandon Islam to do it. Should she be allowed to do so?
I would guess than in this case, you would say the parents’ rights trump hers. Now what if they attempt to force her into an arranged marriage. Do their rights as a parent still take precedence?
Now, let’s make it an 18 year old girl. Legally an adult, presumably able to decide for herself. She would like to voluntarily give up Islam to get out from under sharia.
Does that not make her an apostate? Is it not the parents’ religious duty to prevent her from doing that, by virtually any means necessary? Certainly the “honor killings” that are unfortunately not uncommon among Muslim communities in Europe suggests that many Muslims view their responsibilities that way, even unto killing the girl in question.
My point is that the idea of what’s voluntary in a religion that prohibits apostasy is not clear cut at all. So merely saying that sharia should only apply to someone who has accepted it voluntarily is semantically not meaningful unless you are quite explicit in accepting apostasy.
Exactly. That was his argument. It can benefit women, Omar is arguing against the point that it can’t be good for women, not that the behavior of the Salfists is good for women.
Billy,
I think Omar is accepting apostasy, at least in the sense of honor killings and other such behaviors are forbidden. It is possible, as is true of many Jews and Christians (for that matter atheists whose children become a member of a religion) that Omar himself might not accept it personally, which I would find problematic, but he would certainly have a right to do so. I am sure Omar would consider my behaior often problematic as well, my friends often do. Of course Omar would have to speak to that himself. I am sure as the weekend goes on he will have a lot to say, including helping me out with the menu;>)
And my point(can’t really call it an argument since it’s as obviously true as Omar’s view) is that Islam can be bad for women. I don’t see how that has anything to do with Salafists, or Baptists, or any other group.
By the way, I checked out the other post you mentioned earlier. But I tired of the Christianity v. Islam debate and played with Google. Do a site search for ’sharia’ at Libforall. Or for the American Islamic Congress. Atleast Free Muslims Coalition talks about sharia though it seems the least consequential of all those cited. The photos of their march on DC were positively side splitting. I would throw in a “what else ya got?” but I’m depressed enough as it is.
My point is that any belief system can be bad for women. Who are you disagreeing with? If that is your point what is all the stuff about stoning women and other such things? That is from groups that are not represented as good Muslims by Omar. That people like Omar and the groups he refers you to are not that interested in oppressing women is the point. Proving that there are groups who wish to oppress women is beside Omar’s point. All of your snide insults because of the actions of people he doesn’t approve of are getting tiresome. The reason I brought up other religions and groups is to point out the issue is general.
As to your new point, the weak syllogism as you say, that at least is a valid argument. I am only arguing against the irrelevant ones. Omar can address that opinion, but let’s stay away from smearing all Muslims with the sins of Salafists and other tyrants.
I’m not disagreeing with anyone. I’ve even, multiple times, conceded the point in the OP. I can’t explain why you and Omar got all defensive.
The point, beyond the obvious, is that compared to the proponents of harsh sharia Omar is miniscule. Even the activist groups for moderation and reform, or whatever word du jour is hip these days, stay away from this issue like radioactive plague. Just look at the paucity of debate in your own preferred organizations. Libforall has 35-40 million members, is headed by a known politician and intellectual from the most populous Islamic nation in the world, and is described(I’ve no way to verify) as the largest moderate-Islam group in the world and it musters one passing mention of sharia? In Indonesia alone I think the numbers of people who favor reforming sharia(to make it stricter and more doctrinaire) positively dwarf the world-wide representation in Libforall.
Snide insults? I don’t see how bringing up sharia in response to a positive post about Islam and women is an insult. Inconvenient fact, yes. But an insult? Hardly.
If that syllogism is an argument then so is the following:
Iran kills more women for fornicating than the U.S.
Iran is Islamic.
QED
Islam is bad for women.
I happen to think both syllogisms are equivalent and both are hokum.
Has about we wait for someone to actually do that before busting out the admonitions?
Fair enough if that wasn’t your intention. I’ll consider the conversation at a dead end then.
laughingman,
By the way, thanks for taking the time to run around that mulberry bush.
Kindly view http://www.malaysiasaga.com
Ok, bizarro post there N Mahdevan. Other than some cheap shots at major religious figures, I didn’t see a whole lot of value. And Islamic views of marriage are a bit more complicated than the parting shot on the last page makes them out to be.
Well, I’m certainly glad that my post has produced some discussion! Where should I start since so many questions have been raised?
I guess let me begin at the original point of the post here. Lance asked me to address the issue of Women and Islam about a week ago and I thought that such a topic warranted a full post, not just an add-on or comment. I felt like I did a decent job of portraying a different view of Islamic cultures worldwide to the one which most Westerners are bombarded with day and night. You know like the picture laughingman supplied or images of Taliban era Afghanistan where all you see of the women are black clad figures in sunglasses. Islam is as incredibly diverse as is Christianity, Buddhism, or any other major world religion. Cultures naturally tend to absorb religious teachings, then meld them into their own narrative. Religion actually DOMINATES very few nations. Vatican City would be one. Tibet would, possibly be another. An decent argument could be made that Israel is a third and Iran a fourth. That’s pretty much it. No other nations have mandatory religious rule. If someone can show me proof otherwise, I will certainly stand corrected, but until then I maintain that religion influences but does not rule more than 3 or 4 nations of the world. Now, political and cultural ideologies are certainly advanced on a daily basis under the cover of religion. Saudi Arabia is a great example as is, at times, the United States. It is a failure of your socio-political understanding if you cannot grasp this distinction.
Point the second: I think I’ve made clear as has my co-blogger Lance, that I reject Islamic radicalism and Salafism. I do not advocate any organization which supports such mindless fanaticism. Having said that, I will say that to not accept Sharia law is to not be Muslim. This is completely consistent with the idea that to be an Orthodox Jew you must obey Halachic law and to be a Catholic, in theory at least, you must submit to Canon Law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. To believe otherwise is intellectually dishonest. Now, having said that I also accept that different interpretations of Sharia are most assuredly valid. A great deal of Islamic law falls back on either Quaran or Hadith. As I’ve pointed out before, there is great disagreement between Islamic schools of jurisprudence and sects within Islam over which Hadith are authentic and thus applicable. This changes the complexion of Sharia law greatly from one community to another. Therefore, in Saudia Arabia, for example, honor killings may be perfectly acceptable, whereas, say, in Indonesia they may not be. My point being that Islam is too large and too diverse to paint with a broad brush. This error is complicating Western-Islam relations on both the micro (Muslims living in your communities) and macro (US foreign policy) levels. Too many people in the West, appear to want to view Islam as a monolithic, medieval death cult. Not only is that view incorrect, orientalist, and insulting, but it is also completely antagonistic to reasonable dialog and diplomacy.
More follows.
Let me address a couple of other points raised. McQ says that my take on Malaysia is just plain wrong as evidenced by a BBC story about a particular Islamic leader in one Malaysian state. I understand the confusion here, but let me put this in perspective. If Francis Cardinal George (serving Roman Catholic Cardinal of Chicago) came out tomorrow with a declaration that there is no such thing as rape within marriage, do you honestly believe that American Catholics or the US government would even bother to give such a statement a second thought? One senior Imam who is obviously a knucklehead gives a medieval interpretation of Islamic law. So what? Muslims are under no obligation to comply with fatwas or rulings that they don’t agree with when issued by such a source. He can scream this sort of nonsense to the four winds and it has about as much effect as me declaring that Bill Frist is officially out of the Republican party. The fact of his public position is the only thing that makes this story slightly newsworthy and, honestly, somewhat concerning.
Look, I’m not idealizig the treatment of women anywhere in the world. Let’s not start throwing stones when we live in a glass house, however:
http://www2.ucsc.edu/rape-prevention/statistics.html
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita
The fact remains that women are treated well or poorly based on the dominant culture that they live in. This can sometimes be influenced positively by a strong religious community. It can also be influenced negatively. In the case of a devout Islamic community, not influenced by radical medieval Salafism, I honestly believe that women are treated with more respect and are safer than they are in a similar secularist Western community. Ask yourself if your wife or daughters can walk down the street in your city at 3 in the morning without fear of murder or sexual assault? The US doesn’t have too many places where this is possible. In some majority Muslim nations, a woman can most assuredly do this, granted a big reason is draconian laws (which I don’t necessarily support, but whose effectiveness cannot be doubted), but I’d like to believe that a small part is thanks to positive Islamic teachings regarding women.
I think a good deal of the type of shameful behavior we see towards women in the West is thanks to the sexual objectification of women. Can you turn on a tv at any point in primetime hours and not see a scantily clad woman? I sure haven’t been able to and I don’t watch very much tv. Billboards, movies, video games, music, everywhere we turn we see the reduction of women to mere vessels for the absorbtion of male sexual energy and/or aggression. Again, please understand that I’m not promoting any particular nation’s treatment of women as the IDEAL to be striven for. I’m simply pointing out that nonsense like pornography, explicit television advertisements, and video games promoting sexual violence against women are generally not tolerated in majority Muslim nations. If you believe that US treatment and opinions of women are the IDEAL to be striven for, then I’m afraid you haven’t left your cave in way too many years.
It’s more than that Omar. Check out the rape stats I cited as well.
If that happened would we have something like “catholic lawyers” declaring him right?
Of course not. Our courts are secular. In many Islamic states, that’s not the case. Are you denying that what the imam said wouldn’t be true in a state under Islamic law?
And that can be and is affected by the legal system they are under, and whether it is a secular one or a religious one. That would be as much a part of the culture as anything else.
In my city? You bet. But here’s a question you: can a Muslim woman walk down the street in some Islamic countries BY HERSELF at any time and not find herself in trouble with the authorities for not being escorted by a relative?
Another point to be made - is if there is danger walking down a street in a city at 3am, it isn’t confined to just women, so it is a rather tenuous argument to make as concerning the status of women.
It also goes back to my unanswered point about exposure, full participation and true equality v. the role of women in many Muslim societies.
And you don’t equate an Islamic cleric claiming women are subject to the unfettered desires of their husbands (with absolutely no choice in the matter) as “shameful behavior … toward women?”
How is someone consigned to that status “equal” or “respected”, Omar?
I don’t believe anyone here was arguing the Western treatment or opinions of women were ideal, Omar. I believe it was you holding up Malaysia as ideal from an Islamic prospect that is being questioned here … and still is.
One last comment here. I’ll adress Billy’s post. Islam does not allow for forced marriages. It is expressly against such an act. While arranged marriages are common, the girl has a definite right to refuse.
Regarding apostasy: Yes, if you are under-age, your parents do have the right to enforce compliance with their chosen religion. I support this view whether the parents are Muslims, Christians, Jews, atheists, whatever. Minor children simply do not get to dictate to their parents.
I don’t support so-called honor killings of any type. I’m not an apologist for murder. Any implication that I am is insulting. Once a person has turned 18, they have the right to do as they please. I don’t condone apostasy. I think turning from Islam is one of the worst things a person can do. You place yourself in definite spiritual peril. Islam is the best path to Paradise (Heaven). I don’t believe that it is the ONLY path to Paradise. I have no doubt that devout followers of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc. will achieve Paradise as surely as will devout Muslims. Islam simply provides a better framework and belief system. It is the “complete” religion. Religions which existed before it are not “complete” and are thus harder roads to walk in the search for God and Paradise. I hold great admiration for the devout Christian or Jew, etc. because I know in my heart that his spiritual path is much more challenging than is mine. I daresay some will disagree with me regarding this point, but religion is a personal decision after all and whatever road you choose, know that you have my full support.
Having said all of that, I suppose it really boils down to what community is best for the individual. If a Muslim woman wanted to marry a non-Muslim man and wanted to renounce Islam, then my advice would be to seek counseling from family first, then imam. If she still had no desire to deviate from her chosen path, then I would recommend she move to a more liberal community. She will not be accepted in most devout Muslim communities. I think the same would be true of an Orthodox Jewish girl in the same position. Once you are 18, hey, you’re free to do what you like and the responsibilities for your actions are for you to bear alone.
I don’t subscribe to the “death to apostates” school of thought. Rather, I stand on the Islamic teaching that there can be no compulsion in religion. If you stay a Muslim only to please others, then you might as well be an apostate. Such a person has lost their path to God. They should be pitied and encouraged to look elsewhere for spiritual growth, not executed for their beliefs (or lack thereof).
And I’ll again say that the problem is not how we in the West perceive Islam. The problems existed pre-US-interest(’01) and it will continue to exist as long as moderate forces lecture the wrong people.
But thanks for admitting the obvious–that Islam and sharia are inseperable. You’ve done more than every other person I’ve dealt with in the past. Certainly more than Libforall from the little I’ve seen.
By the way, that picture was not from Afghanistan but Iran.
After this thread’s ‘more’ is done nation-states and sharia would be a good one to tackle. I haven’t been able to figure out my earlier conundrum and I doubt there is a pleasant answer. I don’t see anyway to have a predominately-Muslim state with mild sharia without lending credibility to opposition groups that would include Salafists. Just as the existence of democracies invariably brings with it anarchist movements. One bears no responsibility nor blame for the other as it’s like heat and pressure. But it certainly presents a problem; one that, I think, isn’t solved by democratic reforms. Quite the opposite in that, as I’ve said, fringe extremists then become part of the opposition with platforms and cadidates. The problem becomes more intractable if anything. It’s still a small price to pay for democracy, equality, fraternity, etc. but a price nonetheless.
And just to preclude Lance or anyone else bringing up Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mennonites, I’ll stipulate that this problem would exist for any religion if it controlled a nation-state. And I’ll note Israel’s democracy plagued by the likes of Kahane and other extremists. If we have to we can keep the discussion abstract and full of vague pronouns.
McQ, Malaysia does have a secular court system. It IS a secular nation.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/my.html
Granted, Sharia law is given precedence in “family law” matters relating to Muslims. Does rape fall under the jurisdiction of family law courts? Even rape within marriage? I wouldn’t think so, although I could be wrong. Also, I suspect that the government will override this mufti, as the bottom of the BBC article shows (on a separate matter that he opined on, the government basically gave him the finger).
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/wom1562.doc.htm
shows that steps are being actively taken to continue to promote women’s rights and safety in Malaysia. Curiously, the BBC story mentioned “Islamic lawyers.” What exactly is an “Islamic lawyer?” I assume they refer attorneys who have formal schooling in one of the schools of fiqh as opposed to lawyers who happen to be Muslim. Also, which schools do they represent? Hanbali, Maliki, etc. What types of marriage are the knuckleheads in question (hereafter known as KIQ) referring to? Nikah Mut’ah, Nikah Misyar, or Nikah, or all of the above? Islamic law defines different types of marriage and the legalities are slightly (in some cases greatly) different between them. Also, which school of fiqh does the KIQ mufti represent? Islamic jurisprudence is extremely complex and, as I mentioned above, just because an imam issues an opinion or fatwa does not mean that anyone is going to actually pay attention to him.
This is one of those areas that the Muslim community in Malaysia is going to have to debate within itself over. Western media articles are simply not able to convey the subtleties and complexities of Sharia to their readership. Which is why this whole article is questionable in its significance. Yes, some fairly prominent religious leader says something that some questionably qualified lawyers support. Women’s groups intend to fight the opinion. Outstanding, they have my whole-hearted support. What does that actually tell us about the law or about the ongoing internal Malaysian Sharia debate? Nada. So, yes, I guess the short answer is that I am denying that what this imam says would be true in a state under Islamic law as he has no legitimate legal authority and the matter is subject to intense legal debate by both sides; he is not the final judge in this matter.
I’m glad that your community is very safe at 3 in the morning. The vast majority are not. The dangers of walking alone down a street after dark are magnified if the person is female. To deny that men have more intrinsic safety due to build, gender, etc. is foolish.
Yes, some Islamic communities do tend to the extreme in their view that a woman must be escorted by a male relative when in public. Although we may agree that the result is poor, the intent of the law was good.
I don’t know that I actually argued that Malaysia was ideal, McQ. My intent was to dispel the myth that if you are a female in an Islamic nation you are going to be: raped, beaten, forcibly married, raped during the marriage, beaten during the marriage, kept illiterate, kept out of political power, etc. The broad Western opinion is that there is just no better place on Earth for women than in the West, especially the US. I chose Malaysia as a fairly representative majority Muslim nation. The facts and statistics that I’ve cited from Malaysia and elsewhere merely provide a counterpoint to the above mentioned Western view. I also meant to show that a culture’s view of women is influenced by more than just religion. In all of that, I feel that I have been reasonably successful.
But, and please correct me if I’m wrong, wasn’t your intent to a) show that Malaysian women are at least as respected and equal in their society than are Western women in theirs and b) that had much to do with the teachings of Islam?
The rape stats and the story seem to argue otherwise, and that was my point.
How could the relationship of husband to wife be part of any other jurisdiction?
Well that’s wonderful, but I can show you precisely the same thing in the West.
Well yeah, except they did, and, in fact, Islamic lawyers defended him.
Well please try, because otherwise I’m stuck with the “Western media” view. And if they’re correct, many women in Malaysia weren’t too happy with what the Imam or the lawyers said either. Were they not privy to the complexities and subleties either? I mean it seemed fairly clear to me … do what your husband says or you are disobedient and he can quit supporting you.
That’s simply not true, Omar. Many are not, but actually a vast majority of them are. America is made up mostly of small towns and most are just flat deserted downtown at 3am.
Do we have a violent crime problem? Yes. But not as vast nor as prevalent as many would like to believe.
And in terms of freedom, equality and full participation, how would your rank such “intent”? A result of culture? Religion? Or both?
Well, ok, if you feel you have that’s fine, but I didn’t find the Malaysian example at all persuasive.
My intent was as I stated. I’m trying to advocate the idea that Western views of Islamic communities are heavily biased based on images and articles which emerge from the worst of the Salafist countries. I cited Malaysia as a generally moderate country which certainly does have more women in political office than most nations (including the US when comparing apples to apples [Senate to Senate]) and seems to take more care to respect the rights of women. Islamic influence is certainly present in the culture of Malaysia (as Judeo-Christian influence is present in US culture), but I don’t believe that it dominates Malaysian government. If Islam was THE dominant force in Malaysia, then it would be more similar to Iran than to, say, Israel. I honestly believe that groups of moderate devout Muslims treat women better than the majority of similar socio-religious groups. The one exception that I will admit to would be Orthodox Jews. They have vaguely similar rules regarding relations between the sexes.
Regarding the rape within marriage issue, I don’t agree that such a thing would be handled within family court. I’m not an attorney, but at least in the US, I believe that rape is handled in “Criminal” Court, not “Family” Court. I see no reason why this would differ within Malaysia or any other nation.
I suspect that the mufti in question was mentioned only because of his fairly high visibility position, not because of any authority he might have. The article gives no specifics of what qualifications the “Islamic lawyers” might hold. I again say that this man has no authority over individual Muslims. The issuance of a fatwa or similar statement from an imam or mufti carries no mandate of obedience; the population can simply ignore him if they choose.
The women’s groups have an absolute right to fight the influence of this particular mufti and his supporters. I think they are approaching this from a political angle in which they hope the government or at least federal judiciary will support their position by passing stricter laws regarding the existence of rape within marriage. The mufti must know that for his position to be valid he must win the opinions of Malaysia’s ulema so that an official verdict can be given from a Sharia point of view. These are two different approaches to the problem. The mufti takes the religious angle, which is by no means guaranteed to succeed and the women’s groups take the political angle, which I think does have a pretty good chance of success. What it all boils down to, though, is whether Malaysian secular law considers forcible sex within marriage to be a crime. If it does, then jurisdiction falls to secular criminal courts, not Islamic religious courts.
My views of America are biased from personal experience, as are everyone’s. I haven’t lived in rural or small-town USA. I can hardly disagree with your statement regarding their safety in any intellectually honest manner. I therefore accept that what you say is true. My views come from at least a few years in, among other places, New Orleans, Charlottesville, Denver, D.C., Chicago, and Miami (actually Fort Lauderale). I think you will probably concede that these are not places a female wants to stroll around unescorted late at night.
The intent of Islamic law and tradition regarding differences in the sexes is to address their shortcomings. We acknowledge that men are prone to sexual temptation, so we try to minimize it. We acknowledge that women are less physically intimidating than men, so we try to protect them when they travel by having a male relative present. Also the male relative is meant to advise a woman during business deals so that she isn’t taken advantage of. Now, honestly, how many women have brought their vehicles in to be repaired and then been taken advantage of by sleazy mechanics? I don’t honestly think it’s meant to be discriminatory. Granted we all know the cliche about good intentions, but let’s give credit where it’s due.
Omar,
I definitely agree with you on New Orleans. You might run into a police officer at night there, and that is verryyy dangerous. Luckily there are usually plenty of criminals nearby.
So when and where did you live in New Orleans?
I spent my highschool years in NO during Sidney Barthelmy’s time as Mayor. I lived in the Ninth Ward right off of St. Claude and Delery Streets.
Heh,
Omar, the first rule when dealing with a stalker (see this comment thread for those who are unaware)is not to give too much information. I can now figure out your age.
Sidney Barthelmy. Yeah, very dangerous times. It takes a lot to make Ray Nagin look good, but in New Orleans he is the cream of the crop. The Ninth ward! It is ugly there now, really ugly. The quarter looks pretty good though, uptown not too bad. Lakeview and the midcities still don’t have traffic signals. It is time to listen to some New orleans music.
Well then, this has me confused:
Because this …
… does nothing to support “fair treatment” or the “moral equality” of women.
In fact, all of that says women are not treated as equals nor are they treated with the respect an equal should have.
It also points out that Islam doesn’t treat them as such if, as you state “Islamic law” restricts them for no other reason than they are women.
But, McQ Islam restricts men for no other reason than that they are men. If you want to call it gender discrimination, then Islam is an equal opportunity offender. Women are acknowldeged as the de facto masters on the domestic front. At the same time, men are obligated to certain religious duties which are optional for women. I don’t think that it’s necessarily discrimination to clearly outline the roles of the sexes. If so, then let’s go ahead and tag most other major religions with the discrimination label.
Also, and this only loosely supports my point, but if Islam is such a harsh religion toward religion, why is this happening?
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/4229/women.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1227/p01s04-woeu.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1227/p11s02-ussc.html
http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/Women/british_women.asp
Correction. My last sentence should have read, “… but if Islam is such a harsh religion toward women, why is this happening?”
Omar,
Mind you, I could care less, as long as people can freely choose their religion it is a moot point for me, but most major religions do discriminate. I don’t care, as I said I see no reason why they can’t in a state where people are allowed to opt out of such strictures.
An example that might illuminate would be that if a man wants to have a partner who subjugates him (think Dominatrix) so what? It is their choice. It is not oppression if one can opt out. Thus, I have no issue with Muslims observing Sharia in Malaysia, I have a big problem with the state imposing it in Iran.
Thus I find it unexceptional that women or men crave the roles that Islam or Christianity imposes on them, as long as the imposition is freely accepted. Men and women often want on order to their lives of that sort. I don’t, but I am an odd duck.
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. ;)
[...] Islam and Women Islam and Women actual religious study, but also from extensive travel and residence in worldwide Muslim communities [...]
[...] Islam and Women Islam and Women actual religious study, but also from extensive travel and residence in worldwide Muslim communities [...]