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

[sayak83]

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."

OK. I am trying to explain what is the problem Islam is likely to face if it tries to reform itself in terms of women's rights. I was also restricting my attention to the big 8-9 religions on this matter.

 

[Curious George]

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.

I am saying an express guarantee is better than none. Islam has offered express guarantees in some instances of womens rights. Other religious texts, viewed as sacrosanct by many, offer none. The consequence is that islam protects womens rights more than some other religions do.

If a religious text said nothing at all about womens right what protection can it be said to afford?

 

[sayak83]

I am saying an express guarantee is better than none. Islam has offered express guarantees in some instances of womens rights. Other religious texts, viewed as sacrosanct by many, offer none. The consequence is that islam protects womens rights more than some other religions do.

If a religious text said nothing at all about womens right what protection can it be said to afford?

The protection it affords is to say that the specific laws to be constructed is based on human concerns only and no party can invoke divine mandate for their proposed legislation.

Since principle of ahimsa (nonviolence) or Golden rule is already there, the arguments are to based on which law is more consonant with those principles. Such religions give space to rational moral discourse rather than shortcircuiting it through a series of often half-way house divine injunctions.

 

[Curious George]

OK. I am trying to explain what is the problem Islam is likely to face if it tries to reform itself in terms of women's rights. I was also restricting my attention to the big 8-9 religions on this matter.

What problem do you see that is not problematic in other abrahamic fundamentalism?

 

[sayak83]

What problem do you see that is not problematic in other abrahamic fundamentalism?

Please see the amended post.

 

[Curious George]

The protection it affords is to say that the specific laws to be constructed is based on human concerns only and no party can invoke divine mandate for their proposed legislation.

Lol, I am not sure that such is a protection of rights. It doesn't prevent any assertion of "divine mandate." It says nothing. Consequently either side can claim divine mandate and argue accordingly.

Scripture is twisted in myriad ways. Only with some express guidance can a religion be said to offer protection.

 

[sayak83]

Lol, I am not sure that such is a protection of rights. It doesn't prevent any assertion of "divine mandate." It says nothing. Consequently either side can claim divine mandate and argue accordingly.

Scripture is twisted in myriad ways. Only with some express guidance can a religion be said to offer protection.

Not all religious texts are as bad as the Bible and the Quran.

 

[Curious George]

The protection it affords is to say that the specific laws to be constructed is based on human concerns only and no party can invoke divine mandate for their proposed legislation.

Since principle of ahimsa (nonviolence) or Golden rule is already there, the arguments are to based on which law is more consonant with those principles. Such religions give space to rational moral discourse rather than shortcircuiting it through a series of often half-way house divine injunctions.

Are you suggesting that the golden rule is not part of islam? Why do you think that islam is not open to interpretation?

Of what laws are we speaking? Let's get specific.

 

[Curious George]

Not all religious texts are as bad as the Bible and the Quran.

Hence some, not all. Lol.

 

[Notanumber]

I am not aware of any other “religion” that has stated aims of implementing their own laws to supersede those currently in place in the West.

BTW, I do not want to be ruled over by any religion but this is the ambition of Islam.

 

[Curious George]

I am not aware of any other “religion” that has stated aims of implementing their own laws to supersede those currently in place in the West.

BTW, I do not want to be ruled over by any religion but this is the ambition of Islam.

I think that is a little off topic. We are discussing whether a religion offers more protection than other religions. My comments were regarding some other religions, your seems to be regarding some societies.

 

[Notanumber]

I think that is a little off topic. We are discussing whether a religion offers more protection than other religions. My comments were regarding some other religions, your seems to be regarding some societies.

How can Sharia Law be more beneficial to women than our current western laws?

I believe Islam is a wolf in sheep’s clothing but the trouble is it has many westerners fooled (including our leaders), which is part of its M.O.

 

[Sakeenah]

Don't you think that the fact that Islam believes that the Quran is a direct dictation from God through an angel makes social reform difficult in Islamic society? Given that there are direct Quranic verses allowing polygamy for men, beating of wives by husbands and unequal distribution of property between sons and daughters, the application of reform can be declared unislamic and blocked. Is that not the case? After all, if God said thee practices are OK, how can a mere human disallow them?

I don't think that believing that the Quran is a direct revelation from God makes social reform difficult in Islamic society.
I actually believe that if Muslims in majority Muslim countries would actually apply Islam correctly they would function better as a society.
It's true that sharia influences the legal codes in most Muslim majority countries, but those legal codes have been shaped by a lot of things, including, European colonialism. France, and England and others imposed nation-state models on nearly every Muslim-majority land.
Majority of muslim societies are in need of social and political reform, because their governments are corrupt, they don't meet the needs of their citizens.

The practices that you mentioned such as polygamy, inheritance laws,'beating the wife' all fall under the Shariah. The problem here is thay the majority of non muslims have no idea how Islamic Shariah works.

Sharia is not a book of statutes or judicial precedent imposed by a government, and it’s not a set of regulations adjudicated in court.
It's a body of Quran based guidance that points Muslims toward living an Islamic life.
It doesn’t come from the state,it doesn’t come in one book or a single collection of rules. Sharia is divine and philosophical,it's a framework.

The human interpretation of sharia is called fiqh, linguistically it means understanding
Fiqh is the product of application of usulu fiqh, the total product of human efforts( Islamic jurisprudence scholars) at understanding the divine will.
It deals with the observance of rituals, morals and social legislation in Islam such as those you've mentioned.There are different schools of thought and different interpretations how the verses and hadiths should be applied. So we don't just take a verse and apply it literally, there's a process.

 

[LuisDantas]

I would say that enlightenment and Islam is an oxymoron.

Unfortunately, much as I would like to disagree, the facts just won't let me.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't think that believing that the Quran is a direct revelation from God makes social reform difficult in Islamic society.

Seeing how often the Qur'an is quoted, and for what effect, I must disagree.

I actually believe that if Muslims in majority Muslim countries would actually apply Islam correctly they would function better as a society.

That, I have no doubt, is your sincere belief. You are, after all, a Muslim.

It's true that sharia influences the legal codes in most Muslim majority countries, but those legal codes have been shaped by a lot of things, including, European colonialism. France, and England and others imposed nation-state models on nearly every Muslim-majority land.

True, but how consequential can that be?

At the end of the day, Islaam has existed for about 1400, been followed by billions of people, implemented even today by several dozen countries with millions of people each.

I think the results speak for themselves. Far too often, Muslims actually end up in passionate accusation of each other as well as of non-Muslims, not rarely going all the way to armed conflict.

How often and how tragically must a proposal fail before we accept that it does not work?

Majority of muslim societies are in need of social and political reform, because their governments are corrupt, they don't meet the needs of their citizens.

True, far as I can tell.

The practices that you mentioned such as polygamy, inheritance laws,'beating the wife' all fall under the Shariah. The problem here is thay the majority of non muslims have no idea how Islamic Shariah works.

While true enough, I don't think that qualifies as "the" problem. At most it is a distraction from issues proper.

Sharia is not a book of statutes or judicial precedent imposed by a government, and it’s not a set of regulations adjudicated in court.
It's a body of Quran based guidance that points Muslims toward living an Islamic life.
It doesn’t come from the state,it doesn’t come in one book or a single collection of rules. Sharia is divine and philosophical,it's a framework.

I take it that you see that as a good thing?

The human interpretation of sharia is called fiqh, linguistically it means understanding
Fiqh is the product of application of usulu fiqh, the total product of human efforts( Islamic jurisprudence scholars) at understanding the divine will.

And yet it keeps refering to the Qur'an, feeling duty-bound to it. Because, to the best of my understanding, it literally is.

It deals with the observance of rituals, morals and social legislation in Islam such as those you've mentioned.There are different schools of thought and different interpretations how the verses and hadiths should be applied. So we don't just take a verse and apply it literally, there's a process.

Which, unfortunately, has never worked and is not likely ever to.

 

[Curious George]

How can Sharia Law be more beneficial to women than our current western laws?

I believe Islam is a wolf in sheep’s clothing but the trouble is it has many westerners fooled (including our leaders), which is part of its M.O.

I do not believe any religious based law would better govern a country than secular law.

If the majority of people think differently than you, it does not mean you are wrong. However it is often a sign you should rethink your position to make sure you are right. If we are going to go down this road, I hope you have a very specific argument and not just links to attrocities.

 

[Notanumber]

I do not believe any religious based law would better govern a country than secular law.

If the majority of people think differently than you, it does not mean you are wrong. However it is often a sign you should rethink your position to make sure you are right. If we are going to go down this road, I hope you have a very specific argument and not just links to attrocities.

I believe that atrocities are the backbone of Islam.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is considerable support for such a conclusion, including from the Qur'an itself.

More alarmingly, there is very little indeed to oppose it.

 

[sayak83]

I don't think that believing that the Quran is a direct revelation from God makes social reform difficult in Islamic society.
I actually believe that if Muslims in majority Muslim countries would actually apply Islam correctly they would function better as a society.
It's true that sharia influences the legal codes in most Muslim majority countries, but those legal codes have been shaped by a lot of things, including, European colonialism. France, and England and others imposed nation-state models on nearly every Muslim-majority land.
Majority of muslim societies are in need of social and political reform, because their governments are corrupt, they don't meet the needs of their citizens.

The practices that you mentioned such as polygamy, inheritance laws,'beating the wife' all fall under the Shariah. The problem here is thay the majority of non muslims have no idea how Islamic Shariah works.

Sharia is not a book of statutes or judicial precedent imposed by a government, and it’s not a set of regulations adjudicated in court.
It's a body of Quran based guidance that points Muslims toward living an Islamic life.
It doesn’t come from the state,it doesn’t come in one book or a single collection of rules. Sharia is divine and philosophical,it's a framework.

The human interpretation of sharia is called fiqh, linguistically it means understanding
Fiqh is the product of application of usulu fiqh, the total product of human efforts( Islamic jurisprudence scholars) at understanding the divine will.
It deals with the observance of rituals, morals and social legislation in Islam such as those you've mentioned.There are different schools of thought and different interpretations how the verses and hadiths should be applied. So we don't just take a verse and apply it literally, there's a process.

Does this process make it permissible for Muslim men to engage in polygamy and beating ones wife? Let's ignore secular sources of law for the moment and let's discuss Islamic law and what is allowed in it.

If you say these are not allowed, could explain how one can come to that conclusion?


Quotes from Quran from Surah of Women

If you fear that you will not deal fairly with orphan girls,c you may marry
whichever [other]women seem good to you, two, three, or four. If
you fear that you cannot be equitable [to them], then marry only one,
or your slave(s): that is more likely to make you avoid bias.
do.





129You will never be able to treat your wives with equal fair-
ness, however much you may desire to do so, but do not ignore one
wife altogether, leaving her suspended [between marriage and
divorce]. If you make amends and remain conscious of God, He is
most forgiving and merciful, 130but if husband and wife do separate,
God will provide for each out of His plenty: He is inf i nite in plenty,
and all wise. 131Everything in the heavens and the earth belongs
to God.


34Husbands should take good care of their wives, with[the boun-
ties] God has given to some more than others and with what they
spend out of their own money. Righteous wives are devout and guard
what God would have them guard in their husbands’ absence. If you
fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them [of the teach-
ings of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them.
If they obey you, you have no right to act against them: God is
most high and great. 35If you [believers] fear that a couple may break
up, appoint one arbiter from his family and one from hers. Then,
if the couple want to put things right, God will bring about a
reconciliation between them: He is all knowing, all aware.

 

[sayak83]

Are you suggesting that the golden rule is not part of islam? Why do you think that islam is not open to interpretation?

Of what laws are we speaking? Let's get specific.

Please see my last post to sakeenah.
The fact is Jesus laid down very few laws for Christians, making Christianity considerably more open ended regarding laws compared to Islam.