The female judge quoted in the piece says that the interpretation of shari'a law is a matter of context, and yet I must side with the male judge. The Qur'an is clear, and the historical record indicates that the bulk of interpretation is with his view. The man is superior to the woman (according to Muhammed) and the dominion of the man allows him to chastise his wife under certain situations.
The challenge is not to amend shari'a law or to "reinterpret" the Qur'an, but to assess whether that revelation is true. If it is true, it cannot be amended -- any more than Christian revelation can be amended. If it is not true (if God did not speak to Muhammed, indicating that all revelation before him had been corrupted, and that he was the authentic spokesman for the divine will) then there is no sense in tweaking it, or making it more amenable to modern sensibilities. It must be scrapped and renounced. There is no middle ground with truth and lies.
Comments