Hi Planta.. thanx for the support....

I was reading the article posted by MikeM about the 'reformed' approach to Sharia, and the womens movement in Morocco as reported in the Malaysian Star. It's informative on a number of levels.

It shows the rise of a 'feminist' movement kind of thing, and also the reaction from conservative Muslims.

One thing is quite clear. The goals of the womens movement re inheritance distribution and divorce rights are not only in contradiction with Sharia they are in DIRECT contradiction of the Quran. The sura on 'Women' makes abundantly clear the limits of female rights and freedoms and inheritance rules.

This then raises the question of just 'what' is the womens reform movement based on ? Well, I conclude that they are looking at the freedom of Western Values and the higher status of women before the courts, and said 'Yes.. we would like some of that please'.

Its one thing to bring Sharia (which is specifically 'religious' law) back into line with its foundation documents, removing any 'human' accretions or false traditions, its another to take it in the opposite direction and repudiate the very foundation on which is is supposed to be based.

In such a case, one cannot call it 'reformed Sharia law' it is in fact a new approach to Law altogether. It boils down to 'selection and preference' to fit a contemporary mood in society.

I see no great problem with this, except that one can no longer call it Sharia. ( a point not lost on the growing swell of conservative male Islamic voices in Morocco etc)

Our existing legal system has a long and rich history, Sharia is really quite irrelevant to us and it. All this discussion does is show us how we should value and defend our system from the intrusion of a different one which, when true to its foundations, contains some very 'ugly' features.

Blessings from your Christian/Taliban/Jihadist/ 'Muslim hater' -or so I'm supposed to be :)
Can't please all the people all the time..*sigh* Cannot be 'revered' without being 'reviled' by others.

AlanGrey,

Are you the same AlenGrey who was once in the NSW Division of the Liberal Party?

dobbadan,
I respect you faith, however your theology needs correction. If you're Roman Catholic it's a statement of theology.

I'm an evangelical Christian; not JW or Christadelphian, and I hold the emphasis of Biblical revelation. It nowhere teaches God is three persons or a Trinity [tri-unity]. The Biblical emphasis is God is ONE. The 3rd century Roman Catholics perceived God in spatial terms because they included the humanity of Jesus so it meant they had to formulate a triune concept of God to accommodate three spirits. However the Bible only sees one - the spirit of the eternal God.

God holds no spatial dimensions, as God is Spirit - not a spirit as the Catholics believed. God is revealed in character, actions and wisdom and our spirit bears the capacity to mirror His image.

We in a spiritual sense are identified as our character, attitudes, actions and words. It's these qualities that determine who we are.

The body of Jesus humanity did not identify Christ as God, because in all aspects of his body he was very human. What identified him as of God was his spirit. That's identified by qualities of his character, actions, and wisdom [words]. These are the very nature and mind of God.

It's this that identifies him as Son of God; similarly we are identified as sons of God by the nature of His spirit operating in our lives. This is one and the same Spirit, not three independently operating spirits. Jesus said, "I and the Father are one". To Philip Jesus said, he that has seen me has seen God John 14. Paul identifies there is but one Spirit that identifies the Church, and operates in the believers. Not a spirit for every person in the Church. The conflicting diversity operating identifies misrepresentation of the unity in God.

Though I'm monotheistic, I abhor the attitude of the Koran towards persons of different theology. It's this attitude supposed by Muslims as divine edict that infidels, apostates, trinitiarians must be eradicated as Christians we reject. Christ wept for his religious opponents the zealot Jews.

Keiran

I have been a mental health nurse since 1978. I would much prefer to be isolated on an island with people who have mental health problems -than with an island of blinded, boring, evasive and/or dogmatic Christians or Muslims.

Cheers
Kay

Boazy and Irfy

I'm torn by me genuine (yet oddly warped?) respect for you both.

Put your differing religious world views aside. You can still be buddies.

What I'm concerned about (as a confirmed atheist) is that religious passion lays the groundwork for violent outcomes.

Now. True. Islamic extremism is a clear and present danger.

But if you practice moderation (even regarding the right of OLO posters to a sort of anonymity) then we can, almost, live in a happier condition.

If I lived in NSW I'd contantly remind myself that Mr Maurice Iemma is the Member for Lakemba. Policians are a little coy about offending their electorates for good reason.

I can't say that I know much about Islam, but, more about justifications for conflict and violence.

Goodnight guys

Planta
aka Spooky Pete
at http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.co

BOAZ_David wrote:

"I was reading the article posted by MikeM about the 'reformed' approach to Sharia, and the womens movement in Morocco as reported in the Malaysian Star. It's informative on a number of levels...

"One thing is quite clear. The goals of the womens movement re inheritance distribution and divorce rights are not only in contradiction with Sharia they are in DIRECT contradiction of the Quran."

Another article I quoted subsequently, to which BOAZ didn't refer is at http://www.newstatesman.com/200409130016 and, unless he is a more authoritative Imam than any in Morocco - which he isn't - what he writes is absolute rot.

Quoting from the latter article:

'Every change in the [new Moroccan family] law [giving women substantially equal status] is justified - chapter and verse - from the Koran, and from the examples and traditions of the Prophet Muhammad. And every change acquired the consent of the religious scholars. Even the Islamist political organisations have welcomed the change. The Party of Justice and Development described the law as "a pioneering reform" which is "in line with the prescriptions of Islam and with the aims of our religion".'

If I am generous, I might assume that BOAZ is dyslexic and had trouble reading as far as that paragraph. If I am not I might think that he simply tells lies. If that is the case, he isn't a very smart liar. Anyone referring back to the article can easily see that what he wrote simply isn't true.

BOAZ: if you are going to tell lies, it is better to pick ones that are at least superficially convincing. "Jesus is the son of God" might be a better start than, "Moroccan religious law is in DIRECT contradiction of the Quran". There is no way the former can be disproved, anymore than I can disprove that "some unicorns practice gay sex".