for those of you who aren’t aware of it, this has not been a good couple of years for the orthodox, “strictly-”orthodox and ultra-orthodox communities. corruption around kosher slaughterhouses and conversions, sex scandals, money-laundering, drug smuggling, you name it. all the usual justifications are made, of course, all the usual people accept them and all the usual people sneer at them.
in such an environment, it’s extremely helpful to be able to point to people who can stand up and say in no uncertain terms: this isn’t right. excusing it is even worse. as it says in the Mishnah: where there are no men, at least you should try and act like a man. i am encouraged to see at least some orthodox rabbis swimming against the tide of denial although, of course, not that surprised to see the perennial awkward squad-nik and contrarian (and my own much revered teacher) rabbi jeremy rosen, writing in haaretz:
Obama has finally announced the end of the shameful “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in the US military reports today’s Wall Street Journal:
WASHINGTON–President Barack Obama on Saturday pledged to end a 16-year-old policy banning gay people from serving openly in the nation’s military, in a gesture to a group that provided a major source of support during his campaign.
But the president didn’t set out a timetable for reversing the policy. As a result, his pledge might not be enough to appease some in the gay community who feel that Mr. Obama hasn’t moved quickly enough to address their issues — even as his message could spark criticism from some conservatives and members of the military.
Speaking at a human-rights dinner in the capital, Mr. Obama vowed to end the Clinton-era “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which allows homosexuals to serve in the military, as long as they don’t disclose their sexual orientation or act on it.
The single mother of two rails against a system she says treats women as emotionally and intellectually handicapped.
“If I wanted to get married, I would have to get the permission of my son,” she says.
She is 45; her son, 17.
Saudi women like her are pushing back their confinement — entering schools, getting jobs, starting businesses, speaking out.
Yet laws and social norms make it extremely difficult. Women still require a mehram — a male guardian’s permission — to travel, rent an apartment or attend college, to list a few of the restrictions.
In August, Al-Huwaider held a one-woman demonstration, walking on the Saudi side of the causeway with a placard proclaiming, “Give Women Their Rights!”
The terrible repression of ordinary Iranians and reporters continues unabated in Tehran. The latest news to emerge is that the Canadian-Iranian journalist Maziar Bahari who was covering events for Newsweek has apparently ‘confessed’ to participating:
in a Western media effort to promote irresponsible reporting in Iran.
The whole thing started after Maziar gave Channel 4 News footage of Basiji members opening fire on a crowd of protestors. The Basiji responded by arresting Maziar who has been detaind since June 21. Then, as if right on cue, we have this from Iran’s state sponsored broadcaster Press TV:
…Bahari explained the nature of some of his activities in Iran over the past years and the role that Western media had played in the events, which unfolded in the country.
Sarkozy’s call for a ban on the veil has indeed opened up a number of issues and perspectives, even if he may well have had his own motives for doing so!
We have had the normal reaction on the left to condemn him, the reaction from the right in the UK to call for a ban and even claim Muslims support them and this has caused a little stir amongst Islamists.
iEngage for example originally followed the 1st electronic print of the Express article stating that Ghaffar Hussain from the Quilliam Foundation had stated that the Burka/Burqa was a cultural practice and not sanctioned in the Quran, but then went further and mistakenly claimed that he supported a ban. This has subsequently been “corrected”, by both the Express and iEngage.
A number of ancilliary discussions have persisted some of which are quite interesting, hypocritical and opportunistic.
It seems that the Islamists, and some anti-Islamists, are getting into the debate involving the implementation of Sharia with certain assumptions in mind.
1. There is such a thing as The Sharia!
This is simply not true. Muslim scholars do not have a single detailed rule of Sharia that they agree upon. They agree on broad principles which most humans do, but in general they do not agree on a single body of law which they call Sharia. They have loads of different interpretations on most aspects of their religious code – if not all. To give an example let’s take the rulings of alcohol and wine. Is wine or alcohol forbidden? If it is both or either, is there a punishment? If so, what is the punishment? If not then it is up to the authorities to criminalize or not – a process called Tazir. The fact is there is no consensus on such issues.
“Islamic” economic ‘thinkers’ and Islamist political activists ranging from the terror crew (Bin Laden et al), to the “moderates” often like to have a rant at the evil Capitalist economic system, and specifically interest based banking. They often equate the above with the Islamic prohibition on Riba – usually vaguely translated as usury.
Many Islamic theologians/scholars do in fact consider interest an aspect of usury, though many don’t (see here for a full discussion of all of the Islamic scholars who permitted interest and did not see it as Riba). Assuming many did forbid interest as Riba, it does not necessarilly mean that is the complete picture.
Traditionally theologians have developed elaborate means of ensuring that effective financial transactions are not prevented through the blanket application of Islamic rules of Fiqh (human interpretations of Sharia divine law) to situations without recourse to strategies where necessary.