Comments on: No matter what my friend tells me, sharia law is no excuse

By: Janice

Janice — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:58:16 +0000

@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?

By: O.T.

O.T. — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 19:47:58 +0000

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.

By: ishmael the mississippian

ishmael the mississippian — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:02:37 +0000

@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)?

By: ishmael the mississippian

ishmael the mississippian — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:57:49 +0000

@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?

By: Janice

Janice — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:43:58 +0000

@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.

By: Janice

Janice — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:36:13 +0000

@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?

By: ishmael the mississippian

ishmael the mississippian — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:58:00 +0000

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?

By: ishmael the mississippian

ishmael the mississippian — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:51:53 +0000

@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?

By: Sonal

Sonal — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:02:37 +0000

@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?

By: Genesis Be

Genesis Be — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:19:52 +0000

@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