So are our legal system, and the Napoleonic system as well.

The difference is that while our legal system is based on older legal systems, our laws are not the same as the laws were in the Middle Ages. Interpretations of Sharia differ according to place and time, but the whole point is that the law itself does not change and cannot be amended. It’s a tough comparison to make.

So are our legal system, and the Napoleonic system as well. Things can and do change. Not everywhere, not in every way, but some places, some ways, they do change. Minangkabau; Islamic courts, reality of what is actually done in some places, etc.

Jill, I do have one question for you. You say that one of the problems with Sharia (and can anyone comment on if it is Sharia or Shariah?) is that it does not develop or evolve. Yet recently reading Shirin Ebadi´s memoir is that one of the things unique about Sharia is that it is open for interpretation. She cites the ex. of listening to music, that in order to not lose the support of the youth the law was re’interpreted so it was allowed. (i do not have the book with me so can´t give a direct quote) but was curious what your basis for this statement was?

Well, the deal with Sharia law is that it’s a set legal code that cannot be amended. In theory, it should be interpreted the same way everywhere, since it’s absolute truth. So yes, in practice it is open to interpretation, because like any legal code it’s just words, and cannot possibly encompass every possible situation — so judges have to use the code in response to a variety of situations that aren’t explicity dealt with in the code itself. They have to adapt the code to real life. So we have a situation where there are radically different interpretations of Sharia from country to country. Muslim feminist legal scholars support progressive interpretations, and that’s an important step.

So my choice of the words “evolve” were poor, but the fact is that the text of Sharia cannot change. Our own law, but contrast, can be modified — judges can’t generally change the letter of it, but law-making bodies can. So if there’s a law that we decide is fundamentally unjust — like the former law that women could not own property — we change it. And if the legislature passes a law that violates the Constitution, judges can strike it down. Sharia law, on the other hand, is static. Feminist legal scholars push for liberal interpretations of Sharia itself, and I do think that’s a really good thing, and there are many good arguments there. But at the end of the day, Sharia law says some things that not even the best feminist legal scholar can turn into equality.

Point well taken, and I apologize for making said assumptions.

I will still state however, that it is up to each person to determine for themselves what to do if their life should be threatened by religious extremism (or some other situation), and I’m not crazy about being told that I *should* stay and fight when that is maybe not the best option for me, with my multiple disabilities. I don’t know if you are talking about doing physical battle or fighting in a political sense (protests, general strike, etc), but if the former – I’m autistic, I will freeze in a chaotic situation, putting both myself and those around me in danger. You don’t want me handling a gun, believe me.

I’ll close by saying that I do agree with the main point of your comments; it was just the “stay and fight” aspect that bugged me.

i want to make clear (allyson rowen taylor) that in no way was I trying to support the decisions made by Shariah courts, deny that women have had horrific acts of violence performed on them in the name of Islam, nor am I advocating for the implementation of Shariah courts. i do however agree with jill that much of the purpose of Feldman´s article was that “Sharia law has been misrepresented”. The country, context, and who is in charge of the courts does play a role in the types of decisions that get handed down and I do not think it is fair to lump a legal system used in many dif. countries into one over’arching category.

The two main points that I think are important are:

1. the west gaining a better and more nuanced understanding of Shariah/Islamic law

2. the question of religion in law.

I am 100% with the rest of you who posted wanting a sep. of church and state. I fundamentally disagree with infusing religion into judicial rule as most (all?) countries include citizens practicing a variety of faiths. My interest in the Archbishops comments has to do with his suggestion that Christian law has been incorporated into state law, that there are sep. jewish courts, and how do you allow one or more religions a judicial voice and then deny that same voice to another group simply because you don´t ´like´that group?

Beyond the very serious concerns raised re: religion in the courts, I also agree that there are serious problems with multiple legal systems. In TZ for example, besides Shariah courts there are also tribal courts, some of which do not believe women can own property. As a result if a woman´s husband dies she can be removed from ´his´ home. Despite national law saying women can own property, these tribal courts have final say over cases brought before them. Whether or not it is religious based, having dif. laws for dif. groups creates significant problems and how multiple court systems operate is an issue that should be addressed by any gov. and its citizens before implementing it.

Jill, I do have one question for you. You say that one of the problems with Sharia (and can anyone comment on if it is Sharia or Shariah?) is that it does not develop or evolve. Yet recently reading Shirin Ebadi´s memoir is that one of the things unique about Sharia is that it is open for interpretation. She cites the ex. of listening to music, that in order to not lose the support of the youth the law was re’interpreted so it was allowed. (i do not have the book with me so can´t give a direct quote) but was curious what your basis for this statement was?

William, the reason it sounds like that is because it’s something that people who belong to religions that are supposed to be an entire way of life, but who also treasure secular society (after all, I would still be a Southern Baptist and not a Muslim if our society did not have separation of church and state, so I have that to thank in part for the fact that I -can- live as a Muslim at all), have to learn to balance. I’ve been told I water down Islam and that I’m a terrible person because of my support for a secular nation that allows for freedom of religious expression.

Yeah, and that argument doesn’t cut it. You chose your faith, you’ve got your interpretation, and you’re free to live your life in any way you see fit so long as you do not expect others to follow your religious commandments. At some point you do need to make choices, its the nature of the beast. I don’t think anyone here would have any problem with you going to a Sharia court to settle a dispute within your community, the problem I have is the idea that the decision of that inherently religious body should have any official weight. That is the issue when we’re talking about religious courts. Any enforceability, any public support, anything that makes the decisions of the court more than suggestions in the eyes of secular law is anathema. I’m sorry if you feel that is unfair, I’m sorry if that prevents you from the lifestyle you would like. The bottom line is that you have chosen a religion which still has some tenets which are wholly incompatible with liberal secular society, up to an including the dehumanization of entire classes of people. It is simply intolerable to let that into the law again. We’ve spent too much time fighting back the Christianist influence on the law, and we still have a long road ahead of us. We simply don’t have time to invite another set of roadblocks to the party.

I am not claiming that shari’a is the be all end all, nor am I claiming that we should absolutely instate every aspect of it in America right now this second.

I understand that, but you are claiming that perhaps Sharia should be instated in some instances for some people at some point. I’m not saying that you’re arguing for a radical revolution in this country. I’m saying that any encroachment of religious law into secular law, for any reason under any circumstance at any time, is wrong.

I am hoping that more shari’a courts by women, for women will be instated, along the lines of the link I posted. The reason I support that is because the women making the decisions are largely in the same position and subject to the same experiences as the women who seek arbitration there.

Thats putting the cart before the horse, don’t you think? You’re talking about a basically unequal system that is generally run exclusively by men from a patriarchal culture applying the laws of an aggressively expansionist, monotheistic faith. You’re supporting the idea of using this system, which has a history of abuse and horror, of opening that door. Realistically, there won’t be a lot of these revolutionary women’s sharia courts. There will likely be none at all. The only precedent is one court in one region, and even it was denied official capacity and essentially existed as a voluntary body. And thats before we even begin to consider the broader cultural problems with Sharia and the fact that we have no guarantee that the women in charge of these courts won’t have internalized the misogyny they grew up with.

“Hey, I know its a crummy system that tends to treat women like chattel, but if we use it here maybe it will be completely different! Hey, look at these two examples over 1500 years, it might totally happen…”

And William … what Jill said … and I’ll add that “you should stand and fight” is easy to say when it’s not *your* life on the line.

Theres a pretty strong assumption built into what you just added there. But, as you yourself mentioned earlier in that post, there are plenty of people whose lives would be on the line if conservative patriarchal religions managed to force their way into the law. Mine would be one of the lives on the line. Perhaps I’m just naturally more aggressive or defiant, perhaps I have more of a connection the the place in which I live than you (not that any of these are necessarily good things). I get that, I really do. But please don’t assume that I’m suggesting you put your ass on the line while mine is safe at home.