View Single Post
  #12  
Old May 28, 2007, 05:35 PM
shaad's Avatar
shaad shaad is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: February 5, 2004
Location: Bethesda, MD, USA
Posts: 3,640

BanCricFan,

You are quite welcome.

The quotes on revealed religion are there to distinguish it from religions developed by well, accretion (say voudou, for example). However, I won't deny that I look at Shari'a from an academic perspective. I am a practising scientist and an academic; not examining issues from that perspective would be hypocritical of me.

Given that, I have to proceed based on what I see, not some idealized hopes or expectations. You say:
Certainly, Sharia derived legal codes are not in danger of being fossilized/obselete or not evolving. Although, you might get this impression by observing the poor state of affairs in the current "Islamic" worlds.
My response is that unless I see the status quo changing (and it does not appear to be), my impression seems to be the realist position.

And with all due respect, I have actually studied several aspects of Muslim jursiprudence and Muslim philosophy, albeit from an "academic" perspective. You fail to note that in my previous posting on this thread I said:
Now I am not saying that there is no room in Shari'a/Hudud for dissension/critique/"improvements" (the mechanisms for these are built-in); however, as Tariq Ramadan points out, there are cultural forces that prevent them from coming to pass.
In other words, I already said that there was a mechanism for "improving" (quotes here because people can disagree about what constitutes improvement) Shari'a/Hudud; I merely point out that it simply isn't being used in any significant manner, thus leaving the legal code, in my opinion, fossilized.

I am quite aware of the pernicious influence of religious codes on the origins of both civil law and common law (e.g. divorce statutes in Ireland, bigamy/polygamy statutes in the US, the brouhaha about gay marriage in the US, etc.). However, the common perception of both common law and civil law is that they are secular/divorced from religion, thus making them more amenable to changes that evolve with culture, without the fear of coming up against some (pardon the cliche) sacred cows.

BanCricFan, I have read many of the arguments presented as rationales for why women's testimony or share of the inheritance is less than that of a man, and yes, many of these arguments were based on what you describe as sociological reasoning from an Islamic perspective. I am afraid I did not find them at all convincing.

Now, you are welcome to continue asserting that my "understanding on this matter is very much flawed." But that carries a faint whiff of an argument from authority, wouldn't you agree? If you have the time, why don't you explain to us why a woman's testimony should be worth less than that of a man, or her inheritance portion smaller?

Please realize that I am not attacking your faith or beliefs. I believe we disagree on whether Shari'a/Hudud can be implemented today in a realistic manner to combat the world's ills. I believe further that this is an issue that we can discuss rationally on this thread without it degenerating into what some members would call Islam-bashing.
Reply With Quote