Women & Sharia Law

By the 1960s women began to get the right to vote in a lot of countries, the feminist movement had reached its boiling point, but the Islamic societies, along with others, have stayed behind. Their views on how women should be treated are primitive, and although it can be argued that men still have a position of power when it comes to the working environment in most parts of the world, it is particularly notorious that Muslim women and men are not being treated as equals. Actually, it is difficult, maybe not even possible for women to be treated the same way as men, but at least they should be given the same opportunities to grow and develop and have a right to make their life what they want it to be.

I discussed in previous posts the fact that they were obliged to wear a specific type of clothing, the controversial burqa, but this is not the only thing that Muslim women have to live with, they have to live under the shadows of their husbands and some of them are even sold for marriage. The problem might be the fact that a lot of roots of this religion and Sharia Law are sexist, and the fact that the culture is so embedded into them from the time that they are born, they ought to never question their beliefs and those of their ancestors, and those who dare to question them are either stoned to death or exiled from their country.

If they took a moment to think about it, maybe they could see that there are far more people in disagreement with this aspects of their religion than those who endorse them, and maybe, united, they could begin to change things.

Variants of Sharia Law and Globalization

On the past three posts I've mentioned that Sharia Law is not exactly the same in each and every Islamic country, this is due to the different schools of Sharia Law: Hanbali, Hanifi, Maliki, Shafi'i (Robinson). The essence of the system is the same, all of them are are based on the Koran (the "Word of God") and also taken from Sunna (Islamic customs based on the life of Prophet Muhammad) (Robinson).

The Hanifi Law is the most liberal of all 4 schools and the one that might consider some contemporary opinions, on the other hand Hanbali is the most conservative and has been linked to the most severe punishments mentioned on the previous post (Robinson). The last two, Maliki and Shafi'i are similar, the latter is still conservative and heavily takes its principles from Sunna while the former is based on what the people of Medina did then Prophet Muhammed lived (Robinson).

Another ideal that this four schools have in common is that every Muslim should take their belief and faith wherever they go. However I believe that due to the globalized nature of our world, it is much more likely that people that live under a more liberal variant of Sharia Law will continue to practice their religion. By traveling or living in another country they are being exposed to other beliefs and ways of living and, for example, Hanifi allows a more open state of mind than any of the other schools, therefore this simple quality would make a big impact on the way the Muslim develops in another country since it allows him or her to adapt to a new environment. For this reason I think not only old-school Sharia Law, but a lot of religions should update themselves to meet the needs of the citizens of the 21st century.

Works Cited

Robinson, B. A. "Sharia Law: A Brief Introduction." Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. Web. <http://www.religioustolerance.org/islsharia.htm>.

Punishments

© Hulton-Deutsch Collection/CORBIS

As I posted last week, non-Muslim countries might go all the way to banning some Islamic traditions because they are associated with Sharia law or perceived as denigrating, and some of these traditions are completely misunderstood. However, as much as Muslims believe that Sharia law is a divine revelation and Sharia law differs in severity even between Islamic countries, in this post I will explore the relationship between Sharia law and radical punishments such as arm amputation or stoning a person to death (O'Conell).

Depending on the severity of their violation a Muslim could only be fined by the court or he could even be executed; a lot of Islamic countries don't have a proper judicial system and base off their verdicts on a simple assumption (O'Conell). I think it's weird that these barbaric punishments are still practiced in some countries even after all these declarations of human rights have been established in most parts of the world. The idea of having someone beheaded, even if that someone is a murderer, is primitive, especially when a lot of the reasons for which people are executed are pretty irrational; and even some of the ways in which they are executed are very torturous. Saudi Arabia is one of the countries in which Sharia law is very radically practiced, people are publicly beheaded for committing crimes like murder or rape and when thieves are caught their hand is cut off (O'Conell).

Sharia law has a lot of specific punishments that concern a woman's conduct. For example, a woman can get punished for showing a bit too much of her face or body. Another group that is severely castigated by Sharia law are homosexuals, if someone is caught or even suspected of being homosexual they are executed (O'Conell).

One of the things I find most amusing about the practice of Sharia law is that some of the punishments they carry out are so barbaric that they demean the actual status of both the person that is being castigated as well as the people punishing this person, how can they even be considered humans after they perform these actions? When talking about the Muslim veils last week I somewhat concluded that a woman that actually wants to wear a veil because it is part of her cultural heritage shouldn't be bothered by the government, but when this conclusion is applied to the situation of punishments its illogical... what if they consider this forms of punishment their cultural heritage or that this punishments are actually imposed by God and they cannot be changed at all? Both culture and religion are very complex and controversial concepts to mess with, and a change of culture is much more difficult than any other kind of change. I believe that we can only aim at gradually reducing the radical and extreme nature of these punishments, the only other option would be to force the countries to abandon these practices, but this would probably lead to greater political problems, maybe even a World War, and we don't want that... do we?

Works Cited
O'Connell, Kelly. "Crime & Punishment in Islamic Law." Canada Free Press. 26 Sept. 2010. Web. 1 Sept. 2011. <http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/28083>.