28 responses to “No matter what my friend tells me, sharia law is no excuse”

1. :: wife mom maniac :: says:
   July 14th, 2009 at 3:47 pm

   From what I can see googling "stoning quran" there is not a sentence of any sort indicating stoning as punishment for adults, of women for adultery or anything of that sort. None. Now, I haven't read the Quran but my cousin studies it and she said the same thing, it's not an Islamic rule in the Quran at all. It was culturally normal in many parts of the world though, and is mentioned in Jewish and Christian writings. Weird how religious leaders can't convince people that things are religious edicts that aren't in their original holy books, how many women in those countries where stoning is the norm actively study the Quran, I wonder?

   

   Janice Reply:
   July 15th, 2009 at 2:26 pm

   @:: wife mom maniac and others,
   I have changed the wording of my piece just a bit based on a response from the friend I mention in the article. She has told me that she did not mean that Sharia law was in the Koran, but stoning as a punishment specifically. The added wording is in italics.
   I add that Cyrus told me he has heard the same thing many times since making the film because I think it is important for readers to understand that this is not the opinion of one person I happen to have spoken with, it is a widespread opinion of people all over the world. It is for this very point that I think it needs a critical examination.
   Cyrus told me about his experience hearing this opinion in response to me asking him "what about stoning or honor killings have you learned since starting this project that has surprised you the most?" Cyrus told me he was surprised by all the apologists out there, including Dr. Reza Aslan, with whom Cyrus spoke on a panel with at the L.A.Film Festival.

   A new topic for discussion just came to me: is standing up against things that may or may not be mentioned in the Koran, whether stoning or head covering, an attack on the Koran??

2. Irshad Manji says:
   July 14th, 2009 at 4:39 pm

   You're right that the Quran does not speak of stoning. Ironically, however, the Bible does. (See Deuteronomy 22:13-21.) Even more ironically, most Christians and Jews have moved past the belief that *everything* in their BIbles needs to be taken literally. Yet not have we Muslims are still struggling with our own concept of "ijtihad" — reinterpretation.

   What I find most bizarre is that many "good" Muslims don't bother reading their own scripture. Maybe that's why we have the absurdity (or is it the travesty?) of Janice's Muslim friend complaining that The Stoning of Soraya M. didn't depict a stoning properly.

   Are you kidding me? Wasting your breath with such a complaint, when you could be using your voice to speak out against this utterly UN-ISLAMIC practice, is more than embarrassing. It's downright sick. And sickening.

   Now you know why I take every opportunity to emphasize that we Muslims can't keep pointing all our fingers at the West. We have to look inward too. Big-time. The Quran itself encourages introspection — "God does not change the condition of a people until they change what is inside themselves" (13:11).

   Then again, I'm a lousy Muslim. I actually read and reflect on the Quran.

3. Genesis Be says:
   July 14th, 2009 at 5:46 pm

   In response to the young lady who argued that “The Stoning of Soraya M.” did not properly depict the practice of stoning.

   “The Stoning of Soraya M.” is not a step by step tutorial on how a stoning is conducted. Comments like these divert the focus from the core message of the movie. Let us use our words and actions to mobilize and motivate others to fight against practices that demean/oppress our brothers and sisters (of all religions and nationalities.)

   In all honesty, there were things about the movie that I felt negatively about. While watching “The Stoning of Soraya M.” I noticed that there were direct comparisons of day to day life in Iran during Khomeini’s Rule and his predecessor Pahlavi (The Shah.) This undertone of political propaganda bothered me but rather than trying to strip the movie of it’s credibility or point out the negative thoughts I had about the film, I instead focused on the overall positive theme and purpose of the movie… to advocate for SOCIAL JUSTICE and HUMAN RIGHTS. The movie inspired me to take action and express what I think being a “good” Muslim is all about. I am glad that any negative feelings I may have had about the film did not hinder, for one second, my ability to take away from the film… what I needed to take action against such evil and blasphemous practices.

   With any art form, it is up to us as the viewer, listener and audience to take the inspiration illuminated from the piece and use it as fuel. I encourage all to speak their opinion no matter what but let us choose our words and arguments wisely. Let’s look at the bigger picture.

   Genesis Be

   

   Janice Reply:
   July 17th, 2009 at 2:39 pm

   @Genesis Be, I am surprised to hear that the under tones about the political state of Iran bothered you. Can you explain more about why this bothered you? Don't you think that the political state had a lot to do with the personalities and conflicts of the characters? For instance, didn't the transfer of power to Khomeini have a significant impact on Zahra. She was raised in a more progressive society where she had more room to express herself, yet was stifled to the point of life or death under Khomeini, something she never came to terms with. Also some would say that the turn to violence against women was a weak attempt by some men to reclaim their status and religious power after the Shah. Thoughts?

   

   Genesis Be Reply:
   July 17th, 2009 at 4:34 pm

   @Janice,

   Janice… Thank you for your thoughts and questions. The political undertones that you and I noticed in the movie bothered me for this reasons:

   I felt that the core messege, should have been the focal point without opinion or bias by the writer toward any political cause. Stoning and public execution was practiced in certain areas of Iran under both rulers (more often under Khomeini perhaps?) and I think by showing bias, the producers of the film could have alienated (or turned-off) sympathizers or supporters of Khomeini… some of whom could be useful allies against these disgusting acts of violence against women (and humanity).

   No matter your political stance, the act of stoning is wrong and against human rights.

   I don’t care to get into the discussion of which ruler was the “best” for Iran because in my opinion, there were extreme malpractice during both eras and great achievements under both.

   As I expressed after the private screening, I was concerned that viewers who were not familiar with Islam, would think that the practices and ideals shown in the movie reflect those of most Muslims. Likewise, it is my belief that the negative sentiment felt by some of the characters against Khomeini, do not reflect how the majority of Iranians felt about Khomeini.

   I am not going to sit here and act like everything was lollipops and hallmark cards under the rule of Khomeini, but I don’t think that the brutality shown in this film sums up what life was like in Iran during this time nor should we equate this brutality with Khomeini's rule.

   I am a strong believer that a nation should have the right to sovereignty and Iran did not have this under Pahlavi. It’s common knowledge that Pahlavi was a puppet politician used by the West to promote American foreign policy in the Middle East. Iranian resented this fact. Marches against the Shah included an outstanding number of Iranians ranging from 6 to 9 million! In my opinion, the way we viewed Khomeini’s reign as westerners, is NOT the same way most Iranian viewed his reign.

   The point of my previous reply to your post is that, let us focus on the task at hand. How can we put pressure on CURRENT leaders and politician who support or condone practices that are against the laws of humanity? How can we gain support and incite action from those whose political or religious beliefs may not match our own, but who share the same compassion for humanity that we have.

   http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/gavin.pdf

   (Note* I am not saying that the writers of the book or script "The Stoning of Soraya M." are sympathetic of U.S. Foreign Policy in the middle-east. I wonder if they are sympathetic toward certain minority groups or religions persecuted during Khomeini's rule? I don't know.)

   

   Ishmael the mississippian Reply:
   July 18th, 2009 at 12:34 pm

   @Genesis Be,peace and goodwill.
   While I have been unable to find a showing of the movie here in Mississippi,the tv interviews I've seen concerning the movie left me with the impression that it is another attempt by to portray Islam in a negative way- much to the delight of the Zionazis,the Paulist Anti-Christians, the military industrial complx and other enemies of Islam.

   Most Informed and Conscientious Believers,whether Muslims, Christians, Jews, Humanists, Mystics or whatever agree that humans who torture, stone or use any other form of the death penalty against another human as a punishment for social/cultural/religious inadherence are actually tools/followers of Evil-arrogantly assuming the role of accuser, judge and executioner.

   Perhaps the movie will inspire Muslims to study their religion and consider whether the so-called hadiths(gossip) are to be viewed and accepted with the same reverence as the Holy Quran.

   If a hadith says it is ok to stone a human to death for adultery while the Holy Quran (24:1-10)does not prescribe such an evil act as stoning,perhaps it is time for true Muslims to decide whether to respect and obey the Holy Quran or the hadiths- whether the issue is adultery, women rights, sharia law/religious freedom (Quran 2:256), literacy (Quran 96:1-19), warfare or whatever.

   Page 67 in the book ESPYLACOPA:Letters to America from an American Muslim (www.societyoftheopensky.org) invites and warns Muslims to PREPARE for the BEGINNING by reassessing the way they view the sunna-hadiths' relationship with the Holy Quran and modernity.

   If there is a positve message in the movie, hopefully it will be the message that TODAY Muslims need to choose whether they will obey sunna-hadiths or the Holy Quran as a Revelation from our Creator.

   Prepare for the Beginning!!!

   

   Genesis Be Reply:
   July 19th, 2009 at 12:19 pm

   @Ishmael the mississippian,
   Thank you for your response.
   I encourage you to watch the movie. I didn't get the impression that the movie was an attempt to portray Islam in a negative way. The conflict that you speak of in your response, dealing with "True" Islam and the hadiths, is shown in the film. If anything, the film will raise questions about such topics. I will try to find out where you can view the film or try to provide a link for you so that you can view the movie.

   P.S. Nice website… very interesting views.
   http://www.societyoftheopensky.org

   

   ishmael the mississippian Reply:
   July 22nd, 2009 at 11:51 am

   @Genesis Be,
   I do hope to be able to view the film.
   My remarks concerning how the movie may be used by enemies of Islam are based on the distintion between Inside Intent and Outside Perception.
   While undoubtedly the Intent of Moralcourage and most participants in the production of the film are noble regarding the desire to expose the evil of capital punishment and the concerted efforts by weak,manipulative unIslamic,evil men to deny women their Godgiven rights and respect, as one who has only seen interviews about the film, the perception i got from interviews by the actress starring in the film (on FOX- and we all know that FOX is sooooo fair and balanced
   when it comes to Islam) as well as another gentleman on EWTN or TBN (two more examples of unbiased supporters of Islam…NOT)was a perception that stoning is an intregal part of Islam.

   During the interviews I never once heard anyone attempt to distinguish for the viewers the difference between the Message of the Holy Quran and the Middle Eastern and SW Asian apostatism,culturalism and traditionalism espoused in the sunna-hadiths/sharia law.
   The interviews I ve witnessed failed to show the moral courage to distinguish between the Holy Quran and sunna-hadiths, thus leaving the TV audience ( 80% of which will never see the movie and more than likely already has a bigoted view of Islam)with a perception of Islam which correlates with the religious bigotry they already hold.

   Intent and Perception!!!!!
   Wonder when such resources and efforts will be used to produce a film depicting the suffering of the Palestinian mothers, sisters and daughters?

   

   Janice Reply:
   July 22nd, 2009 at 3:43 pm

   @Ishmael the mississippian, I like what you say about the movie perhaps encouraging Muslims to study their religion for themselves, though I think this applies to practitioners of all religions. This was a theme in the film as many of the villagers, especially the women, were helpless to defend themselves because of the manipulative way that the mullah lied to the villagers about the Quran. Educated people are empowered people–that is they are informed and brave enough to make their own decisions and conclusions. This is why female education is something the governments in oppressive societies is often discouraged.
   I really want to point out that while you make some really good and really important points about the film and its portrayal of Islam, the movie is not meant to be a criticism or a commentary about Islam but rather a commentary on human rights, moral courage, and reform. The objective is to tell Soraya's story, not to solve any problems as it relates to the religion.

   

   ishmael the mississippian Reply:
   July 22nd, 2009 at 4:57 pm

   @Janice, peace and goodwill;
   as i've stated in my last post, there is often a difference in Intent and Perception of that Intent.
   While i have no doubt that the effort to tell sister Soraya's story and the story of other women is the intent of the film, one needs only to google "the stoning of soraya" to see how the enemies of Islam are misusing the Intent to fit their Perception(or should i say Misperception or Bigotry) of Islam.

   If Muslims and the rest of world fail to see that the essence of Soraya's story is to alarm/alert Muslims and others to the Anti-Islamic teachings within some sunna-hadiths/sharia law, then i am afraid her story will have been told in vain.

   Unless this message (the irreconcilability between the Holy Quran and certain Un-Quranic sunna-hadiths/sharia law) then sister Soraya's story will just be another movie about a lynching in Iran, instead of a lynching in America.

   However, when we look at the reviews of the movie, we see that most are focused on using the movie to justify the bigoted stereotypes about Islam instead of the true essence of the film-which I think sister Soraya would want – which is to expose the blasphemy and evil being carried out behind he facade of sunna-hadith -induced sharia law.

   I would assume that Sister Soraya embraced and love God and the universal teachings of True Islam. Do you think she would feel the film portrays Islam in a positive light to the non-Islamic world? Or would Sister Soraya see the film as an exploitation of her death that tarnishes her love for and commitment to God and true,genuine Islam?

4. :: wife mom maniac :: says:
   July 14th, 2009 at 7:18 pm

   eep, where I said religious leaders can't, I meant can. Reminds me of the book "Behind the Veil" about women in Afghanistan. Turns out so many people there are iliterate that they take religious leaders words for things about what the Quran and Hadiths say, without learning for themselves. A friend of mine who travelled in Africa said this was normal of women she met there, they were kept illiterate, she was never able to speak to them because they only knew their tribal languages and didn't understand a word she said while the men were educated and knew french as well as tribal launguages. same thing happens in all religions where there are priests/rabbis/muslim/hindu equivalents.

5. :: wife mom maniac :: says:
   July 14th, 2009 at 7:23 pm

   ooop, the book was called "veiled threat". brilliant book http://www.amazon.com/Veiled-Threat-Hidden-Power-Afghanistan/dp/1568582528/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247617332&sr=1-7

6. Irshad Manji says:
   July 14th, 2009 at 10:47 pm

   Genesis, I hope Janice's friend takes the time to watch your video of Soraya's Song: http://irshadmanji.com/moralcourageproject/2009/06/sorayas-song/

7. Mehdi Rifai says:
   July 14th, 2009 at 11:42 pm

   Actually, what most people don't understand is that, except with a few corroborations with the Qur'an, most Shariah law is the product of Ijtihad and therefore is capable of being restudied under Ijtihad again, perhaps altered for the times. What might be a stumbling block is that much of Shariah relies on Hadith, and then you get into the argument: "How rock solid and reliable is Hadith?"

   Frankly, though, I'm of the opinion that if you're going to open your mouth, you might as well say what is really on your mind, because it's all opening a can of worms anyway. You can voice it diplomatically – and by that I don't mean evasively, I mean you don't have to be Islam's version of Simon Cowell. In the end, though, you just need to realize, that you're not talking to a group that is willing to listen to you by default. If they already agreed with what you had to say, then you wouldn't have to say it. The difficult part is getting them to listen, and getting some of them to think about it.

   

   Sonal Reply:
   July 19th, 2009 at 7:02 pm

   @Mehdi Rifai, I liked your post. Your last comment is key: "the difficult part is getting them to listen, and getting some of them to think about it." I sometimes wonder if activists' approach should be different. I mean, go a step further than diplomatic. We have established that the people that follow leaders that enforce practices which violate basic human rights have not read the Qur'an properly. Now how do we show them that. I think telling them 'Well, go back to the Qur'an and see that what you practice is not right,' is likely to result in some hostility. People don't want to be caught in ignorance red-handed. Perhaps our approach, on an individual basis, needs to be different, and more compassionate? I know its difficult to be compassionate towards people following such barbaric practices, but, most of the people following the corrupt leaders don't know any better and are doing all this "in the name of God." (There is actually a documentary about Hindus being convinced by Hindu nationalists to attack and destroy a masjid by making them feel as though they were doing it for God. The documentary is called “In the Name of God” and shows how most of the lay people involved did not even know why they were destroying the mosque) I guess I am just trying to bring attention to the fact that many of us (me included)because we are so angry about the injustices committed make inflammatory remarks which just fuels the fire and makes dialogue even more difficult. My question is, when is it appropriate to be inflammatory and when is it not?

8. Mehdi Rifai says:
   July 14th, 2009 at 11:48 pm

   I forgot – you should also be asking: "Who is forbidding these women from wearing pants?" The rules of decency, established by Shariah law, state that as long as their not form fitting, women can wear anything they want that gets to the ankle from the bottom, and the wrists and neck from the top, as well as a Hijab for your hair. Even then, whether the Hijab is required, or whether its supposed to cover all your hair or just the slope and the cut is something no two scholars can agree on. Therefore, by Islamic law, these women were unjustly punished.

   I get, though, that the point is, Islamic law or not, wrong is wrong in some cases, and we should be able to say what we think is wrong, and either prove our point or stand corrected – through discourse, and nothing else.

   

   Janice Reply:
   July 15th, 2009 at 9:38 am

   @Mehdi Rifai, I understand that in many cases, whether it be this case with the legality of pants or the stoning of an innocent woman as in The Stoning of Soraya M., many feel that Sharia law is being incorrectly administered. That is why I strongly feel that no religion, Islam or otherwise, is an appropriate basis for a legal system.
   Although you say that the Sharia laws of decency state that a woman should not wear clothing that is form fitting, is that not vague enough to be open to a lot of interpretation? Surely wearing pants may be considered by some to be form fitting, which they really are. I feel people must be able to judge the acts of these practitioners without being forced to do research to discover whether or not it is true Sharia law.
   Furthermore, as you point out when discussing decency laws, these are rules that are imposed on women, in many cases exclusively. Although I may be accused by many of merely spouting my "Western feminist" POV, I don't believe that religion is an excuse to legally mandate what any woman should wear.

   

   Mehdi Rifai Reply:
   July 15th, 2009 at 1:04 pm

   @Janice, Well, unfortunately, there are some times when Shariah law is being administered correctly and is still at odds with what most consider humanly conscionable. I think my more salient point in this regard is that Shariah law, for the most part, is the result of Ijtihad and not the direct implementation of Qur'anic law, basically allowing it to be reinterpreted – If you can convince anyone of that.

   On the other hand, when you have something in established Shariah that is on your side, that gives you a window to object all the more strongly. You're right that, to some degree, all pants are form fitting, but most other Arab Muslim countries (My only frame of reference, unfortunately) agree that, as long as it's not spray paint pants or skinny jeans, that a loose cut pants or baggier jeans meets decency standards.

   In the end you're always going to have people who are going to stand up and say you're wrong when challenging Shariah or Islam, which is to a degree liberating, since you can then say anything and probably get the same reaction. Hopefully, though, some of what you have to say will sink in.

9. AJHance says:
   July 15th, 2009 at 11:17 am

   I personally have a problem with laws that would restrict women's dress to the point of covering their entire body and forcing the hajib, but what really bothers me is the punishment that is given to those "guilty" of wearing the "inappropriate" dress.
   Flogging and stoning are disgusting, period.
   We have indecent exposure laws in this country. No matter what your beliefs about whether these laws should or should not be on the books, the punishments are much more reasonable.
   I know, I know, I know. Western ideals aren’t the supreme moral standards that all of the world should follow. However, in this case I think we got it right when we decided not to stone and flog anyone under our legal system.

10. Genesis Be says:
    July 15th, 2009 at 3:01 pm

    Every nation has a right to self-determination and to implement what law they choose as long as those laws abide by natural law and natural consequence.

    Theocracy is not a bad thing in my eyes. I actually feel that most western nations are "closeted" Theocratic Democracies.

    I can’t lie though, the issue of Sharia Law and Sunnah Hadith is a very complicated issue for me. Certain articles and clauses strike me as blatently oppressive and anti-islamic and leave me thinking, “Who wrote this s#*!” Excuse my French.

    I don’t think EVERYTHING included in Sharia Law is unacceptable. I do believe that this system should be revamped and modernized, in order to continue social and spiritual progression.

    I have great admiration for women who are not forced, but CHOOSE to cover themselves while in public. This act of modesty and self-respect is something that all women should understand and respect. On the other hand, I have the same level of respect for women who are not exploited, but CHOOSE to display there beauty to the public in a tasteful manner. This act of independence and self-empowerment is something that all women should understand and respect.

    I guess the point of my rambling is… the freedom of choice should be the foundation of law in society. As long as one’s actions do not harm others and do not hinder the positive advancement of others, they should be allowed to do what they want. Including… wearing pants.

    

    Janice Reply:
    July 22nd, 2009 at 3:36 pm

    @Genesis Be, I think one of the reasons the issue of Sharia law is so complicated for people such as yourself is that the line drawn between government/law/and religion is so thin. Many people, including many so-called progressives want frame the issue and a cultural or religious one, instead of framing it as a separation between church and state issue as we do in the U.S. When it comes to our own government, there are few (though there are some) from either side who want to blur the line between church and state, yet when it comes to discussing Sharia law even the most progressive people want to convince themselves that it is necessary to recognize the good in the Sharia law system instead of taking a firm stance against religiously-based law.
    Sharia law, or any form of religious law, is oppressive when instituted by a government. It is not an attack on Islam, but rather a promotion of democracy, something that really can't exist under Sharia law, not matter how "revamped" or "modernized" it is. Thoughts?

    

    ishmael the mississippian Reply:
    July 23rd, 2009 at 1:02 pm

    @Janice, Personal laws(morals,conscience,ethics), civil laws (constitutional, local) and religious laws (scriptural,congregational) quite often overlap, even in a democracy, oligarchy,monarchy etc.

    However, the Holy Quran (2:256) warns against religious compulsion and for this reason, mostly, i find gov't imposed sharia law to be incompatible with the Holy Quran. Should or does sharia law be enforced or observed if a citizen is not a Muslim and lives in Saudi
    Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, etc?

    On the other hand i feel if an individual or congregation chooses to observe or enforce religious laws on a personal or congregational level ( and the observance of such a law does not harm or endanger others, especially children) then the gov't shouldn't interfere.

    Otherwise, i think Believers, Nonbelievers, Sceptics, etc agree that certain commonly-held individual morals and societal laws (those dealing with murder, rape, theft, property rights, integrity,assault, abuse, etc) deserve mutual respect and observance regardless of religion.

    If an individual chooses to disobey his or her personal laws (conscience), who is the accuser, jury , judge and enforcer?
    If an individual chooses to disobey societal law who do they answer to?
    If an individual chooses to disobey a religious law who should they answer to?

    If sharia law claims jurisdiction over individual laws, societal laws and religious laws, then is that a display of disrespect for the individual's jurisdiction over self as well as disrepect for the jurisdiction of God?

    Is sharia law a form of idolatry if it assumes the role of God.
    Who has jurisdiction when it comes to prosecution, judging and sentencing for acts identified as sin (disobedience to the will of God-as religions, nature or conscience define the will of God)?

11. Irshad Manji says:
    July 15th, 2009 at 5:06 pm

    All: I, too, strongly advocate freedom of choice. As a Muslim woman who chooses not to wear the hijab, I can't expect my choice to be respected if I'm not willing to respect the choices of others. However, it must be a choice freely made and not something "chosen" in response to pressure — from one's peers, one's parent's, or one's culture.

    This may sound like an obvious point, but in many parts of the world, it's not obvious at all. In Yemen, for example, the vast majority of women present themselves publicly in a full head-to-toe burqa. Yet, under Yemeni law, it's not mandatory to cover that way. So why do 99% of Yemeni women wear what amounts to the same uniform? Are they *choosing* it?

    Here's an excerpt right out of my documentary, Faith Without Fear, that pretty much answers this question — from a Yemeni perspective. I'm interviewing Lamya, who wears the burqa as well as the niqab (veil):

    Irshad to Lamya: Other Muslim women have told me that even dressing this way, without the veil itself, is a sign of Islamic extremism.

    Lamya: Actually, I think that I did something that’s very American. I took advantage of American freedom of expression in religion.

    Irshad: But can wearing the burqa and niqab truly be a free choice if you know that when you go out into the streets you will be harassed if you don’t wear it?

    Lamya: In that type of society, it can’t be a truly free choice because it’s not a society that, allows free choices in many ways, not just in terms of how women should behave.
    
    Bingo. It can't be a truly free choice if you know you'll be demonized for not choosing it. Which, in Yemen, is the prevailing reality.

    The question is: Given that the Quran expressly states "there is no compulsion in religion," why doesn't Yemen adopt *religious* law that gives women freedom of choice?

    Janice suggests that expressly religious laws take rights away. It most cases, that's true. But just yesterday, a news story ran about how Egypt is turning to religion to fight sexual harassment: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1909361,00.html

    Is religion, then, always the problem? Can it ever become part of the solution?

    

    Mehdi Rifai Reply:
    July 18th, 2009 at 8:22 am

    @Irshad Manji, Ultimately, there really is no other way. The aim of annihilating the influence or the existence of any religion is simply impossible within a time-constraint that is acceptable to change, and therefore you have to approach it from within. I'm obviously a supporter of using the current interpretation when it works in our favor, and in many cases it's just a matter of reminding people that their actions are wrong even in Islam. Harassment, denying mothers custody, denying women inheritance rights, terrorist acts masked as acts of war: All of these have clear refutations in Shariah that are available and should be incontrovertible.

    The only problem with seeing anything as incontrovertible is when you want to start introducing change, which admittedly is highly needed. Stoning is not in Quran, but it is in Shariah and was a practice of the prophet, which of course makes it difficult to challenge. There is, however, what is called 'Orf in Islam, which is when you consider what is generally accepted and acceptable as "right." Usually this works against progressives, and is also the last resort for most religious scholars, but generally if you can prove that something, such as stoning or flogging, is unsupported socially, you can make the argument to end the practice.

12. ishmael the mississippian says:
    July 22nd, 2009 at 12:58 pm

    This discussion really shows that the metamorphosis of modern Islam MUST inevitably undergo the process of emancipating Islam from the chains of the remnants of Paganism displayed in Middle Eastern and SW Asian culturalism/traditionalism.

    Since the majority of Muslims DO NOT live in or have immigrated from the Middle East or SW Asia, perhaps it is time for Muslims of SW Asian and the Middle East to realize they DO NOT have a monopoly on
    the correct interpretaion or practice of Genuine Islam.

    Afterall, if the Holy Quran says many people were Muslims (ie, Abraham.Ishmael,Moses, Jesus,Mary, etc)long before the Arabs accepted Islam then did these people identify themselves as Arabs?
    Have the Muslims of SW Asia and Arabia, in their zeal to get Islam to conform to Arab culturalism and traditionalim (sunna-hadiths),done great harm to the true intent of Islam in the same manner that Christians and Jews of Europe and America, in their zeal to get Christianity/Judaism to conform to their culture and tradition(trinitarianism-talmudism) have harmed the true intent of Judaism or Christianity?
    Does the Holy Quran (69:44)have anything to say about sunna-hadiths(sayings)?
    Do the final words of the Sura "The Prophet" have an implicit or explicit message to the Arab/SW Asian Muslims or the African/Americam/Western Muslims of today?

13. O.T. says:
    August 15th, 2009 at 3:47 pm

    It's very interesting to read this thread of comments. Thank you to all participants for your enlightening perspectives. It's interesting to see the points argued from the perspectives of human rights, the Quran, Hadiths, Sharia Law, culturalism, etc. It seems that, underneath the apparent distinctions and divergence of viewpoints, the discussion really doesn't get to root premises in our relationships; for example "Who does a human being belong to?" Is s/he property of the state, the masjid, the religion of the place they're born to, their family? Personally, I am of the opinion that human beings are their OWN property, NOT the property of other human beings or gangs of human beings (whether a majority, minority, mufti, mullah, priest, doctor, parent, etc.) For a human being to be the property of another human being is slavery, by definition.

    What is fascinating about much of human behavior, religious, political (including democracies where the rule is tyranny by the majority through decisions enforced by armed thugs, i.e. violence & submission by proxy)is that we are all very interested in enforcing what OTHER people are doing – and what this leads to in practice is societies generalizing a certain amount of misery and subjection.

    Is there no redemption in Islam, Christianity, etc.? If you are redeemed by the Creator Him/Herself (assuming you buy into this notion) then how is your redemption lessened whether someone wears form-fitting pants or nothing at all?!

    The truth about human rights is that there are NO human rights where the human being is not her/his own property. This is the first and perhaps the only human right we should concern ourself with. Should we truly embrace the concept of self-ownership then we will begin to understand the oppression at the heart of cultures that operate out of a premise of domination, obedience, punishment, "deserving," and separation.

    

    Janice Reply:
    August 17th, 2009 at 10:58 am

    @O.T., Thank you so much for your comments. I agree with you about the notion of mandating a particular dress for women makes them the states property. It is frustrating that instead of discussing human rights in the manner that you do, so many people want to discuss the attributes of institutionalized religious law, though as you can see by the comments strain few people have actual proof that anything positive comes of it. Why do people feel so obligated to justify any aspect of a system that subjugates women this way?

Moral Courage Posts

• Those seeking torture porn will be very disappointed. March 14, 2010 Janice
• Tell your representatives to help prevent child marriage March 14, 2010 Janice
• Senator Kennedy's legacy should remind activists about reality. March 14, 2010 Janice
• A sexist society’s subtle spell on teens. March 14, 2010 Julie
• Illegal compassion March 14, 2010 Terkel
• A closer look at The Stoning of Soraya M. March 14, 2010 Janice
• The struggle for gay rights in a country with no gays. March 14, 2010 Dana Gallagher
• How I felt when I saw The Stoning of Soraya M. March 14, 2010 Nezha

Most Popular

• No matter what my friend tells me, sharia law is no excuse
• A Young Iranian Watches The Stoning of Soraya M.
• Those seeking torture porn will be very disappointed.
• The struggle for gay rights in a country with no gays.
• Caution: Men at work (demolishing violence)

Soraya M. Stills

Latest Comments

• :: wife mom maniac :: on Those seeking torture porn will be very disappointed.
• Bill on Senator Kennedy's legacy should remind activists about reality.
• Janice on Senator Kennedy's legacy should remind activists about reality.
• Bill on Those seeking torture porn will be very disappointed.
• Bill on Michael Jackson or democracy: what matters to Americans more?
• Bill on Senator Kennedy's legacy should remind activists about reality.
• Bill on Senator Kennedy's legacy should remind activists about reality.
• Mehdi Rifai on Those seeking torture porn will be very disappointed.
• karys rhea on Those seeking torture porn will be very disappointed.
• Janice on Those seeking torture porn will be very disappointed.