The Cellar - View Single Post

Skunks · 06-04-2004, 05:10 PM

I think I'm just going to give in and admit to being a hardcore, Radar-esque Islam apologist.

The article misses a few points about Shari'a. It's not just legal guidelines, it's everything. Shari'a includes how to pray, hygiene, and, yes, marriage/inheritance. It's the actions (sunnah) and sayings (hadith) of the prophet Muhammad. So it goes without saying that "But for Muslim women, the pressures to abide by the precepts of sharia are overwhelming. To reject sharia is, quite simply, to be a bad Muslim." The same goes with most religions; you're generally expected to follow the guidelines.

Further, it fails to note that Shari'a itself is more of a concept than anything. It's interpreted many different ways; I believe there are four main Sunni schools of fiqh and a few less Shi'ite ones, along with all the oddball terrorist types who could sort of be considered their own interpreters. Regardless of the precise numbers, lumping everything together under the broad umbrella of 'Shari'a' is directly parallel to lumping every politician in the history of humanity together, and saying that women in Canada are being pressured to follow politicians.

Ignoring the article's flaws, though, the women seem a little nutzo. It sounds like all Canada has done is say that two consenting adults can decide things based on Shari'a and the decision will be upheld. There's no obligation, just an alternative. Which, in my opinion, is pretty cool; it's true religious freedom.

It should also be noted that, as with anything, the "good" or "bad" of Islam is up to the practitioners. You can twist it, like you can twist the US legal system, or you can use it well and fairly, like you can use the US legal system. Some people argue that the limits on women set forth in the Qur'an are progressive and awesome, because they suggest a trend that should be followed; things were improved for them, and people should continue to build on those improvements. Other people argue that the Qur'an should be followed precisely, with the greater freedoms for women being as far as it should ever go.

A professor of mine once said that "Islam" is really made up of a bunch of often radically different 'islams', with no single one being the true Islam.

06-04-2004, 05:10 PM	#4
Skunks I thought I changed this. Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: western nowhere, ny Posts: 412	I think I'm just going to give in and admit to being a hardcore, Radar-esque Islam apologist. The article misses a few points about Shari'a. It's not just legal guidelines, it's everything. Shari'a includes how to pray, hygiene, and, yes, marriage/inheritance. It's the actions (sunnah) and sayings (hadith) of the prophet Muhammad. So it goes without saying that "But for Muslim women, the pressures to abide by the precepts of sharia are overwhelming. To reject sharia is, quite simply, to be a bad Muslim." The same goes with most religions; you're generally expected to follow the guidelines. Further, it fails to note that Shari'a itself is more of a concept than anything. It's interpreted many different ways; I believe there are four main Sunni schools of fiqh and a few less Shi'ite ones, along with all the oddball terrorist types who could sort of be considered their own interpreters. Regardless of the precise numbers, lumping everything together under the broad umbrella of 'Shari'a' is directly parallel to lumping every politician in the history of humanity together, and saying that women in Canada are being pressured to follow politicians. Ignoring the article's flaws, though, the women seem a little nutzo. It sounds like all Canada has done is say that two consenting adults can decide things based on Shari'a and the decision will be upheld. There's no obligation, just an alternative. Which, in my opinion, is pretty cool; it's true religious freedom. It should also be noted that, as with anything, the "good" or "bad" of Islam is up to the practitioners. You can twist it, like you can twist the US legal system, or you can use it well and fairly, like you can use the US legal system. Some people argue that the limits on women set forth in the Qur'an are progressive and awesome, because they suggest a trend that should be followed; things were improved for them, and people should continue to build on those improvements. Other people argue that the Qur'an should be followed precisely, with the greater freedoms for women being as far as it should ever go. A professor of mine once said that "Islam" is really made up of a bunch of often radically different 'islams', with no single one being the true Islam.