The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Islamic law and women > Comments

Islamic law and women : Comments

By Chris James, published 20/3/2009

The invasion of Sharia Law into western philosophy and culture has started with its acceptance in the UK.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 12
  10. 13
  11. 14
  12. All
I think the main point is there should be no other law than the law of the land. This way all citizens are treated the same and if there are deficiencies they can be changed and all citizens benefit. The problem with the introduction of Sharia law for domestic purposes is it will not be satisfied at stopping with that. It will want to intrude into the commercial sphere and disputes will then arise as to what law should be applicable and the citizen will not be certain of the outcome as precedent is not involved. Islam and democracy are incompatible, there are no Islamic democracies. Democracy interferes with the hierarchical nature of Islam.
Posted by foxydude, Friday, 20 March 2009 2:57:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a 'democracy' we already have enough problems with conservative factions of the Christian religion attempting to control women's bodies (attempting to ban RU486 & stopping funding to family clinics that provide access to abortion), the infiltration of Sharia law would be a further step back into the dark ages for humanity.

Separation of church and state, end tax exemption and promote freedom from religion.
Posted by Fractelle, Friday, 20 March 2009 3:04:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's an extremely charitable attitude, Andrew, but I don't believe it has legs.

>>But to me the central point of the article is the fact that "men still try to make women feel obligated to fulfil men’s sexual needs"<<

The title is "Islamic law and women", not "what is wrong with men'.

Despite the feeble attempt at a disclaimer, the article encourages exactly the response it is now getting.

Preceded by the section heading "A step by step invasion", the author introduced the following progression:

1. The UN supports "reporting anyone who dares to speak out against Sharia law"

Then, just in case we were in any doubt,

2. "Sharia law requires women to be stoned to death for adultery and young men to be hanged for being gay"

And for good measure:

3. "Sharia law has become part of the law of the land in Britain".

This clearly delivers the message that Sharia Law, a regime that requires women to be stoned to death for adultery, is now incorporated into British law, with the full sanction of the United Nations.

Hardly surprising then, that it elicits responses like this one from Themistocles:

>>It's the intellectual depredations of a morally homely spineless elite that has allowed the antediluvian Sharia law to invade and ensconce itself in the land of Shakespeare.<<

Say what you like about the obscurity of the thought processes involved and the pretentiousness of its delivery, this is straight out of the whack-a-mozzie handbook.

It echoes precisely the tone of the article.

The "morally homely spineless elite" (homely? fascinating) is obviously the United Nations. The expression "antediluvian Sharia law" is an appropriately censorious shorthand for all that stoning and stuff. While the concept that it has "invade[d] and ensconce[d] itself in the land of Shakespeare" is headily emotive, and exquisitely inaccurate.

So Andrew, I know you were trying to be gentlemanly and courteous to the lady, but I think she really meant what she said.

She might even believe her disclaimer, "Let me be clear, I am not anti-Muslim or anti-immigration".

I don't.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 20 March 2009 3:05:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author has summarised 14 centres of legal tradition by reference to the statements of a Sydney imam, a Melbourne preacher and an Egyptian journalist from the mid-twentieth century.

Can I summarise the Common Law tradition using the words of an Andreew Bolt columnist, a rant from Danny Nalliah and a South African judge from the mid-twentieth century supporting the legal basis for apartheid?

I think the author should stick to psychotherapy. Analysing and understanding comparative law and legal traditions just isn't her game.
Posted by Irfan, Friday, 20 March 2009 3:57:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Tell it to the Muslims, dearie."

Leigh, sweetie, which Muslims should she tell? The ones who, like me, completely oppose the operation of the death penalty anywhere, including (and especially) Muslim-majority states?

It seems, Leigh honey, that you have not yet come to terms with the fact that not all Muslims support Taliban-style law.
Posted by Irfan, Friday, 20 March 2009 4:00:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With the pope lecturing the Aids-ravaged people of Africa to cast out their condoms, Sharia Law is starting to look downright progressive.

Pericles,

I don’t think the author deserves all the condescension you are pouring on her. Her writing style in this essay and others she has written for OLO is to make intuitive connections between wide-ranging and seemingly disparate issues – with the common factor in this case being the socio-political control of women’s sexuality.

It’s a style that we linear-thinking Westerners are not used to, having conducted many hundreds of years of intellectual discourse perched precariously astride the twin pedestals of logic and objectivity – both of which are in their own way illusory and unreliable.

Intuitive reasoning has for too long been suppressed, ridiculed and marginalised as ‘women’s thinking’. Certainly, the author has been a little overambitious but the fact that she has inspired a number of interesting and diverse comments so far indicates that she is onto something important.
Posted by SJF, Friday, 20 March 2009 4:18:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 12
  10. 13
  11. 14
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy