Pericles

In your cognitive ignorance you don't realise that by using the 'clever' allegory of "whack-a-mozzie" you turn Muslims into 'vermin' and hence 'stupidly' condemn yourself, under Sharia law, to death by stoning.

http://xanga.com/kotza

While SS has a few vaguely valid points above(I was a single dad of three, and battled the system for years to get what single-mums got out-of-hand)I can't agree, it's a cry of pain, not reasoning, I think.
Let's face it, we can't possibly speak with any authority on how Islamic women feel or think about their situation. We can express our opinions on our own perspective, inevitably faulty, by definition. But since there are so many cultural and historical influences on the way ANY religion is followed, or laws enforced, anywhere, it would seem pointless to discuss what the Law actually says or means, it's beyond our scope.
The big liberator for women everywhere would appear to be Education, even the most ignorant Taliban knows this, and it's demonstrably what lead to so many changes in our own society.
Until or unless the situation changes in that area, nothing much else will, that's my opinion anyway.

Women in Australia are already subject to a type of Islamic Law. At the Family Court they have no part to play in proceedings and it is a Mullah directed by the Parliament who inflicts pain on them or their hapless former husbands. In an Australian court women should have an opportunity to participate fully in public affairs, since they got recognised as equals after seeking and getting the vote.

The right to vote also meant the right to participate in jury trials, but the male and female chauvinists who demanded and got the Family Law Act 1975 have never had the opportunity to participate in a truly Australian court. It has been pure Atheist or Islam since its inception. Any court without a jury is either atheist, Islamic or Jewish.

In a true democracy with proper Republican Government as taught in the Holy Bible, and adopted by the English after 1688, the right to vote was not compulsory, but the duty to serve on a jury was. Women should always have the right to vote, and serve in every court, as equals to men.

The Holy Bible has been the great liberator of women under Protestant Christian Constitutions. Jesus Christ loved women as part of mankind, and His teachings are that they are equal in every way to men, just different. When the English adopted the New Testament Gospels as their Constitution, then Islamic style Courts should have become impossible.

However lawyers generally are dishonest and although a Family Court Judge, by S 26 Family Law Act 1975 must first take the same Oath of Allegiance as a member of Parliament, not one of them has ever admitted that to be an Australian court, as opposed to an Islamic one, they have to include both men and women as judges in the process.

Einfeld was jailed this week for dishonesty. How long must we wait for the justices of the family and federal courts, to start constituting Australian courts again. We do not need de-facto Islamic or Jewish Courts that exclude both men and women from their deliberations

I think you pretty well nailed it, CJ

>>If the author wanted to make the point that aspects of Sharia Law (and indeed fundamentalist religious belief of any description) are incompatible with the advances in gender equity that Western societies have experienced over the past 30 years or so, she could have done so far more successfully if she'd avoided the Islamophobic dog-whistles.<<

I sometimes feel as though I am some kind of Canute on this thread, pointing out in vain that when the islamophobic tide comes, there just ain't no stopping it.

The ignorance almost seems to be willful. How else can you explain the deliberate misreading of the use of community values in a civil tribunal, as the implementation of an entire legal system?

Bassam's comment is fairly typical.

>>The type of Sharia Law the author is referring to is the one expounded by Muhammed (May Allah Bless His Immaculate Soul!). Things like allowing sex with 9 year old girls, multiple wives, wife beating and so fourth.<<

Of course, it would be churlish to spoil such an exciting story with facts. But this form of intentional scaremongering is dangerous, in that it fosters a permanent culture of knee-jerk vilification. If were to continue to follow this path, we would lose every claim to reasonable thought processes, and ultimately create our very own Australian Kristallnacht.

Themistocles takes a different tack.

>>Pericles In your cognitive ignorance you don't realise that by using the 'clever' allegory of "whack-a-mozzie" you turn Muslims into 'vermin' and hence 'stupidly' condemn yourself, under Sharia law, to death by stoning.<<

His reasoning is clearly too sophisticated for mere mortals to follow, but it does demonstrate standard response #2 to being outed as an islamophobe, cannily recalling the writer's argumentation as a six year-old.

"Well derrrrr, if I'm ugly, then you are too, so there and no returns."

>>I thought I'd have a go at reframing the discussion into something more constructive...<<

Once the dogs are loosed, Andrew, I'm afraid they just keep on yapping.

Abuse of Women in Islam 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtX3mTdJ9Lk&feature=related

The trouble with Sharia law is that is fundamentally flawed. It assumes that;

1. God exists
2. We can know and understand with certainity the actions and commands of the Prophet.

Well, we cannot know whether God exists. This is an impossibility. What's more, all the evidence suggests that the Universe is devoid of a 'personal God'.

Also, early Islamic 'history' is woeful as far as accuracy is concerned. Creating laws based on early biographical data of
Mohammed is therefore a futile waste of time.

In conclusion - to construct a judicial code for society based on Islamic theology and 'history' is delusional.