Fundamental Contradictions of the  Left
 
To call the Koran "inherently egalitarian" is some kind of joke.
 
Not that the Bible, especially some books of the OT, doesn't have  serious
problems of its own. But, while the Judeo-Christian scriptures can  be
said to be authoritative, or even inerrant, there have always been,
at least since the Reformation, significant numbers of believers,
including Jews from the 17th century onward, who have said
that not all of the Bible is what it seems. Or who have gone
even further and said that parts simply no longer apply.
 
When the Age of Enlightenment came along in the 18th century this
development allowed for large scale "re-interpretation" and for
seeking and finding independent sources of authority --in everything
from English common law to philosophical treatises. Hence the rise
of modern thought and culture.
 
The problem, at least as I see it, based on what Muslims or  ex-Muslims
have said, including scholars of Islam, is that there is no such option  for
contemporary Muslims. The one large scale movement that challenged  the
authority of the Koran came and went in the first 2 or 3 centuries of  Islam
and is as dead as Gnosticism is among Christians. It simply has no
relevance today, or so little that it hardly matters.
 
In effect, in other words, any Muslim who is a believer in any orthodox  
school
is one kind of "fundamentalist" or another. Hence, about the Koran, and  
Shariah
Law which is mostly based directly on the Koran,  there is no wiggle  room.
The only apparent "out" is a false option on its face, namely to devise  new
views that are only possible because the innovator is basically  ignorant
of the contents of the Koran and feels free to attribute ideas to the  Koran
that reflect nothing so much as wishful thinking.
 
This may work well enough among other ignorant "Muslims," apparently
such as many Arab feminists, but then when it comes time to challenge  the
official umma, essentially the decision makers in the community, the
reformers are out on a limb with no good case to make. Indeed, it
can be argued that the only reason that reformers have any chance
at all is because actual knowledge of the Koran is abysmal among
the great majority of Muslims, which seems to be an unarguable fact.
 
To put it a little differently, for an actual Muslim who knows his stuff,  
or her stuff,
any reformer is about as far outside of what is acceptable as is Bishop  
Spong
to a typical Evangelical or Catholic, viz, a mile out in Left field.
 
All of this said, it is remarkable that feminism has as much traction
as it does within Dar al-Islam. Which is not all that much, but  nonetheless
is significant.
 
As for the particulars of Shariah, to take just the question of  polygamy,
different estimates of Muslim families in the USA where there are multiple  
wives
range from 10,000 to 100,000. Yet all opposition to polygamy ( polygyny  )
in America is directed against Mormon sectarians in the SW.
 
How much longer can this continue ? 
 
It isn't exactly as if polygyny is outside the Koran  --Allah's  inviolate 
word, so it is said--
since Muhammad had 10 or 11 wives and all male believers can take as   many 
as 4
as stated in words attributed to Allah. This is explicit. To argue  against 
it would
be the equivalent in a Judeo-Christian context or saying that we don't  
really need
all of the Ten Commandments and can dispense with number 3 or 5 or 9.
Sure, a secular person may do so, but for a believer this is  unthinkable.
 
So, what happens when US civil law finally must deal with polygyny among  
Muslims ?
 
This issue has been there all along, of course, and has  been documented  
--in books--
since at least the early 1990s. Yet it is completely avoided by the MSM.  
While there
is a reason for the avoidance  --desire by the Left to appease Muslims  vs. 
the
view that in feminism polygyny is a Mortal Sin, hence not saying  anything
about this avoids dealing with a fundamental contradiction on the Left-- 
it simply is preposterous for the situation to continue forever.
 
Therefore, look for the sparks to fly as soon as this breaks into the  news,
whenever that might happen.
 
You've also got the anti-homosexual values of the Koran in total  opposition
to so-called "gay rights." This has also been avoided completely by the  
MSM,
not to mention the government, both parties, BTW, even if most  blatantly
among Democrats.
 
In sum there are a number of major contradictions, really structural  
contradictions,
that exist on the Left because of its love affair with Islam. What I  have 
said here
is simply a gloss and great over-simplification. My thinking is that  the 
only thing
that prevents this from exploding is cultivated ignorance, a view shared  by
Norman Berdichevsky and doubtless a good many other critics.
 
In so many words, what the presence of a sizable Muslim minority in the  USA
amounts to is a large open can of gasoline. The only question is  : When 
will
someone toss a match into the gasoline ?
 
Billy
 
 
============================================================
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
message dated 8/9/2011 1:05:27 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
[email protected] writes:

 
Our best hope for avoiding creeping Sharia is empowering women.  
Female Muslim Activists lament the spread of sharia law
_http://islamtodayoregon.blogspot.com/2011/08/female-muslim-activists-lament
-spread.html_ 
(http://islamtodayoregon.blogspot.com/2011/08/female-muslim-activists-lament-spread.html)
   
____________________________________
  
 
 
Their efforts to reform Islam are  being hampered by the spread of sharia 
law courts and feminist Muslims are  dismayed that because of this, their 
efforts are being hamstrung. The examples  of sharia courts in Britain and 
Canada reinforce their cause and voice, and  they rightly point out how sharia 
has crept beyond simple cases of arbitration  to become, in some cases 
standing legal opinion instead of English common  law.
Theirs is a cautionary tale to  which the West needs to pay attention.  And 
to all those Western  feminists and their supporters who are rallying 
behind these brave Muslim  women, thank you.
Oops, sorry, I forgot there are  few if any Western feminists who voice 
their support and spend their money on  helping Muslim women achieve and keep 
their rights as humans and women in both  Muslim and non-Muslim countries.
>From _The Australian_ 
(http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/sharia-law-in-the-west-goes-against-fight-for-reforms/story-e6frg6ux-1226111214151)
  
August 9 by Ida Lichter
Sharia law in the  West goes against fight for reforms
ATTEMPTS to introduce  sharia family law into Western societies run against 
the tide of reforms  spearheaded by female activists in the Muslim  world.

Many aspects of these laws are unpalatable to a  society that has enforced 
equal rights for divorce, custody, inheritance and  court testimony, and 
criminalised polygamy and forced, under-age  marriage.

Moreover, the experience with sharia in  Britain and Canada is cautionary. 
It is estimated thousands of British Muslim  men have taken advantage of a 
loophole in the law against bigamy to avoid  official registration and seal 
polygamous marriages in mosque  ceremonies.

Religious divorces, much more difficult for  women, were issued by sharia 
councils in a form of mediation under the  Arbitration Act of 1996. In 2007, 
Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi took advantage  of a clause in the act to 
establish the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, which  could now make judgments 
enforceable under British law. The tribunal also ran  sharia courts. Matters 
such 
as commercial and inheritance disputes could be  resolved provided both 
parties agreed and the procedures were fair, but  criminal and family issues 
such as forced marriage, domestic violence or civil  divorce, were prohibited.

According to a report by  British think tank Civitas in 2009, some rulings 
of sharia courts or tribunals  advised illegal actions and others were 
incompatible with British law. Try  these: polygamous marriage (two to four 
wives) is considered legal; there is  no requirement to register a marriage 
according to the law of the country; a  woman cannot marry without the presence 
(and permission) of a male guardian; a  woman may not leave her home without 
her husband’s consent; a woman may not  retain custody of her child after 
seven (for a boy) or nine (for a girl); and  “severe punishments for 
homosexuals” are recommended.

In  June, a new bill tabled in the House of Lords by Baroness Cox aimed to 
strike  out gender-discriminatory rulings in sharia courts and make it a 
criminal  offence, with a jail term of up to five years, to falsely claim 
jurisdiction  in family and criminal cases. Recently, the Ministry of Justice 
in 
the  Coalition government abandoned an inquiry into the courts because the 
latter  refused to co-operate. Existence of an estimated 85 official and 
unofficial  courts in Britain has not fulfilled the ambitions of extremists. In 
the London  boroughs of Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets and Newham, a recent 
poster campaign  proclaimed sharia-controlled zones and implementation of 
Islamic rules,  including bans on alcohol, drugs, gambling, music, smoking, 
prostitution,  homosexuality and the mixing of sexes in public.

In  Canada, sharia courts operated under Ontario’s Arbitration Act of 1991. 
After  the leader of the Canadian Society of Muslims declared that a “good 
Muslim”  was enjoined to choose religious tribunals over Canadian civil 
courts, Homa  Arjomand, an Iranian immigrant, feared Muslim women would be 
coerced into an  alternative legal system where they would be denied protection 
of the Canadian  Charter of Rights. Arjomand mounted a campaign, and in 2005 
the premier of  Ontario banned all faith-based arbitration in the province 
to ensure one law  for all.

In Muslim-majority  countries, many female reformers have campaigned for 
changes to gender  discriminatory laws. Iranian women “suffragettes” have 
held demonstrations,  risking injury, arrest and imprisonment. In Afghanistan, 
some women activists  have been assassinated. Most reformers maintain the 
Koran is  inherently egalitarian, and discriminatory laws evolved in a 
patriarchal,  tribal society without the input of women. They also note that  
laws 
from 7th-century Arabia may not be applicable in the  21st.
A understated truth if ever there  was one. 







-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

Reply via email to