Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ahmed Elneweihi who wrote (30070)	5/19/2002 1:16:36 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

My point is not to label a religion with injustice because of biases in the application of the laws. The bias in the application that you describe is very bad, but is no worst than the bias against the blacks in the application of American laws in some states up until the late 20th century. First, the law itself accepts a man's word as proof of his innocence, while the woman must find four male Muslim witnesses to prove his guilt. That is not mere "bias in the application of the law." That is bias in the law. Second, this bias is hardly localized, since the stories about it come from Nigeria and Pakistan. As far as one can see, this is the normal interpretation of Shari'a law. Many Muslim feminists point out that the Islam was originally a progressive force for women. It didn't remain one long, however, particularly after the Arabs picked up the customs of the misogynist Byzantines, and Shari'a is heavily misogynist. For example, a woman's testimony counts for half of a man's testimony, by law. From a woman's point of view, Shari'a is regressive even compared to Mosaic Law, which points out that a raped girl is not guilty of a crime (though it's a bit murky about a raped wife, but the principle of no consent=no sin is established in the text), and even gives the benefit of the doubt to a woman who says she was raped in the field, where no one could have heard her cries (Deut. XXII 25 ff.)

To: Ahmed Elneweihi who wrote (30070)	5/19/2002 6:15:00 PM
From: Climber	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hello Ahmed, The bias in the application that you describe is very bad, but is no worst than the bias against the blacks in the application of American laws in some states up until the late 20th century. Yes, there's plenty of shame to go around, you're right about that. But our democratic system -- slow as it is at times -- was able to eliminate the legal underpinnings of this bias through legislation and constitutional interpretation. Is Sharia Law, as practiced in Saudi Arabia, for instance, open to amendment and interpretation through an accountable judiciary and a representative legislature? When that happens we can begin to talk about justice -- however imperfect and frustrating that concept always is. Climber