Do Muslim women believe that Islam protects women's rights more than other religions?

[Curious George]

I have edited my previous post to include another link as an example for what is happening today.

Fifty years ago we in the UK were arresting gays for being in love, but thankfully we are now more enlightened.

I am confused at how this detracts from my point?

 

[sayak83]

I agree that the question used the word "protects" which speaks directly to the present. I am offering the past as evidence of the present. I am not speaking of the past willy-nilly here. Is it true that under other religious regimes womens rights were less than they were with islam? If so, then it stands to reason that those religions protect (present tense) womens rights less than islam. Just because people of a faith act differently or believe differently now does not mean that the religion itself protects any more or any less than it did when people believed as they did in the past when women were not protected (past tense).

No it does not stand to reason. That is because it also matters whether civil laws and criminal laws are considered inviolable commands from God for all time or considered to be injunctions that, while based on certain principles, are evolvable in context of the day and age. This is the crucial point regarding how forward looking a religion is rather than how it was when it began. Quran strongly adheres to the former notion making any sort of reform in its legal ideas difficult to sustain theologically. That is the problem.

 

[Curious George]

No it does not stand to reason. That is because it also matters whether civil laws and criminal laws are considered inviolable commands from God for all time or considered to be injunctions that, while based on certain principles, are evolvable in context of the day and age. This is the crucial point regarding how forward looking a religion is rather than how it was when it began. Quran strongly adheres to the former notion making any sort of reform in its legal ideas difficult to sustain theologically. That is the problem.

No, I dont think that matters either. Because if they can "evolve" one way and it is acceptable then they could "evolve" back and be just as acceptable. So regarding protection, all you have said is that it is perfectly feasible for the civil and criminal laws to return to what they were and some religions would do nothing to stop them.

So, rather, it is your notion that does not stand to reason.

 

[sayak83]

No, I dont think that matters either. Because if they can "evolve" one way and it is acceptable then they could "evolve" back and be just as acceptable. So regarding protection, all you have said is that it is perfectly feasible for the civil and criminal laws to return to what they were and some religions would do nothing to stop them.

So, rather, it is your notion that does not stand to reason.

Even secular laws can evolve back. 50 years from now slavery and racism can be one legal again in USA if political atmosphere changes. So what you are saying has no merit at all. The only consideration here is if a religion is constructed such that the laws are unalterably bound to what is written in the sacred text a millenia ago, or whether the laws can change with changing attitudes and understanding of its living practitioners. For Islam, it's the former. Which is the problem.

 

[YmirGF]

Even secular laws can evolve back. 50 years from now slavery and racism can be one legal again in USA if political atmosphere changes. So what you are saying has no merit at all. The only consideration here is if a religion is constructed such that the laws are unalterably bound to what is written in the sacred text a millenia ago, or whether the laws can change with changing attitudes and understanding of its living practitioners. For Islam, it's the former. Which is the problem.

It is a rather thick pine box they have put themselves in.

 

[Curious George]

Even secular laws can evolve back. 50 years from now slavery and racism can be one legal again in USA if political atmosphere changes. So what you are saying has no merit at all. The only consideration here is if a religion is constructed such that the laws are unalterably bound to what is written in the sacred text a millenia ago, or whether the laws can change with changing attitudes and understanding of its living practitioners. For Islam, it's the former. Which is the problem.

Except that if you were to ask whether the U.S. law protects womens rights more than Islam, then you would be asking a very different question. We add to law. You might have a point if we added to all other religious texts. If for instance the 19th ammendment was undone, we would have gone back to a former version of u.s. law. And it can be said that the former version of u.s. law protects womens rights less than the currwnt version (although I would argue that any version of u.s. law protects womens rights more than most religions) There are not necessarily former versions of religious text-just different interpretation and emphasis. So the religion itself is not what protects, but the views of the practitioners, which are only one facet of the religion and certainly not the part of a religion that can be said to protect as they are more so subject to change.

 

[Curious George]

It is a rather thick pine box they have put themselves in.

Not quite.

 

[YmirGF]

Not quite.

OK, I'll bite. How so?

 

[sayak83]

Except that if you were to ask whether the U.S. law protects womens rights more than Islam, then you would be asking a very different question. We add to law. You might have a point if we added to all other religious texts. If for instance the 19th ammendment was undone, we would have gone back to a former version of u.s. law. And it can be said that the former version of u.s. law protects womens rights less than the currwnt version (although I would argue that any version of u.s. law protects womens rights more than most religions) There are not necessarily former versions of religious text-just different interpretation and emphasis. So the religion itself is not what protects, but the views of the practitioners, which are only one facet of the religion and certainly not the part of a religion that can be said to protect as they are more so subject to change.

Except some religious sacred texts are more like constitutions that provide broad principles that are interpreted by devout practitioners and based on those interpretations develop and continue to evolve laws over time. This precisely why, just like US laws, the religious laws can also progress over time.

Other religions expound specific laws in their sacred text declaring them to be set for all time. This makes it very hard to do anything without incurring the charge of heresy. Quran is a document of this type. You can read it and see for yourself.

Of course there are religions where sacred texts themselves can be added in legitimately. Think of Constitutional amendments. Rare but can happen.

 

[Curious George]

Except some religious sacred texts are more like constitutions that provide broad principles that are interpreted by devout practitioners and based on those interpretations develop and continue to evolve laws over time. This precisely why, just like US laws, the religious laws can also progress over time.

Other religions expound specific laws in their sacred text declaring them to be set for all time. This makes it very hard to do anything without incurring the charge of heresy. Quran is a document of this type. You can read it and see for yourself.

But what is more protective, a constitution that guarantees women a right to vote or our constitution prior to that ammendment which could arguably be interpreted as giving women the right to vote?

 

[sayak83]

But what is more protective, a constitution that guarantees women a right to vote or our constitution prior to that ammendment which could arguably be interpreted as giving women the right to vote?

US constitution did not have any such guarantee correct? No Constitution prior to late 19th century had any such thing. Every age will bring new ideas and new challenges, and the best constitution is one that can adopt the best while not diluting its essential principles. It's ludicrous to expect a legal system to cater to all insights from 500 BCE to 500,000 CE, the latter ones may be dealing with problems of terra forming and diplomatic rights of alien bugs for all we know.

 

[Curious George]

US constitution did not have any such guarantee correct? No Constitution prior to late 19th century had any such thing. Every age will bring new ideas and new challenges, and the best constitution is one that can adopt the best while not diluting its essential principles. It's ludicrous to expect a legal system to cater to all insights from 500 BCE to 500,000 CE, the latter ones may be dealing with problems of terra forming and diplomatic rights of alien bugs for all we know.

You did not answer my question. The current u.s. constitution has ammendments which are indeed part of the constitution.

 

[Notanumber]

I am confused at how this detracts from my point?

I would say that enlightenment and Islam is an oxymoron.

 

[Curious George]

I would say that enlightenment and Islam is an oxymoron.

Good thing i am not a muslim, care to enlighten me now?

 

[Notanumber]

Good thing i am not a muslim, care to enlighten me now?

I thought I already had. Try reading some of my posts and looking at the links I have provided.

 

[sayak83]

You did not answer my question. The current u.s. constitution has ammendments which are indeed part of the constitution.

It does. Constitution is something that can be added to under certain circumstances. More frequently its interpreted in different ways to adapt to changing conditions of the world. Many religious texts and their interpretations also have these features. Others do not. That is a crucial difference.

I consider religions where legitimate means exist to add to sacred texts as even more progressive. I noted this earlier already.

 

[Curious George]

I thought I already had. Try reading some of my posts and looking at the links I have provided.

You have yet to explain how your links detract from my point.

 

[Curious George]

It does. Constitution is something that can be added to under certain circumstances. More frequently its interpreted in different ways to adapt to changing conditions of the world. Many religious texts and their interpretations also have these features. Others do not. That is a crucial difference.

So the question remains, which is more protective: a constitutional guarantee of womens suffrage or the constitution prior to that ammendment which could be interpreted to give women a right to vote?

 

[sayak83]

So the question remains, which is more protective: a constitutional guarantee of womens suffrage or the constitution prior to that ammendment which could be interpreted to give women a right to vote?

First one obviously because one can amend the constitution. Here is what I am saying

Amendable and interpretable religious laws are better than merely interpretable religious laws and are better than sacrosanct religious laws.

 

[Curious George]

It does. Constitution is something that can be added to under certain circumstances. More frequently its interpreted in different ways to adapt to changing conditions of the world. Many religious texts and their interpretations also have these features. Others do not. That is a crucial difference.

I consider religions where legitimate means exist to add to sacred texts as even more progressive. I noted this earlier already.

And i would say that islam would have a hard time claiming it is more protective than the current version of these if the current version expressly gives women more rights than the religious scriptures of islam, but I never claimed that islam coould say that it protects womens rights more than all religions. Rather I specifically stated "some."