PDA

View Full Version : Turkish Muslim leaders remove sexist comments from canon law


Ladewig
17th July 2006, 08:43 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/14/AR2006071401381_pf.html

"If a husband's body is covered with pus and his wife licks it clean, she still wouldn't have paid her dues."

"Your prayer will be invalid if a donkey, black dog or a woman passes in front of you."

In a bold but little-noticed step toward reforming Islamic tradition, Turkey's religious authorities recently declared that they will remove these statements, and more like them, from the hadiths -- the non-Koranic commentary on the words and deeds of the prophet Muhammad.

Hadiths are serious stuff. More than 90 percent of the sharia (Islamic law) is based on them rather than the Koran, and the most infamous measures of the sharia -- the killing of apostates, the seclusion of women, the ban on fine arts, the stoning of adulterers and many other violent punishments for sinful behavior -- come from the hadiths and the commentaries built upon them. Eliminating these misogynistic statements from the hadiths is a direct challenge to some of the most controversial aspects of Islamic tradition.

Modern Muslim intellectuals have long argued that the hadiths should be revised, but this is the first time in recent history that a central Islamic authority has taken the dramatic step of deciding to edit them. The media and intellectuals of Ankara and Istanbul largely welcomed last month's decision, which the Turkish government supported. And although there were rumblings of discontent from ultraconservative commentators, they didn't amount to a protest. Yet, despite the rhetoric about the need to make alliances with progressive Islam in the midst of the fight against terrorism, Turkey's move toward reform has been widely overlooked in the West, and there has been little acknowledgment of it in other Muslim countries.
[more]


Huzzah!

KelvinG
17th July 2006, 10:20 PM
It's about time. I can't tell you how many times a black dog riding a donkey has ruined one of my prayers.


edited for dumb typo

ceo_esq
18th July 2006, 08:53 AM
"Canon law" doesn't mean religious law generally. It's specifically Christian, and if I'm not mistaken, is only used in relation to the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Church of England.

Beady
18th July 2006, 09:01 AM
It's about time. I can't tell you how many times a black dog riding a donkey has ruined one of my prayers.

I believe sarcasm and/or irony is misplaced. This is an intrenched institution beginning to clean its own house and taking the first step, no matter how small, toward rationality. Personally, I would rather encourage them than laugh or sneer.

Beady
18th July 2006, 09:11 AM
"Canon law" doesn't mean religious law generally.

According to Webster, "Canon law" is "codified law governing a church." While "church" is most often associated with Christianity, Webster does not limit its use. In fact, by using the phrase "especially Christian," it implies that there are other, albeit lesser-known, applications.

In any event, more westerners are familiar with the phrase "canon law" than "sharia law." If the reporter was trying to place it into a familiar context for his readers, his use was perfectly correct.

Ryokan
18th July 2006, 09:19 AM
In Buddhism, we call the collection of ancient Pali texts the Pali Canon. So the word can most definently be used outside Catholicism/Christianity.

ceo_esq
18th July 2006, 10:41 AM
According to Webster, "Canon law" is "codified law governing a church." While "church" is most often associated with Christianity, Webster does not limit its use. In fact, by using the phrase "especially Christian," it implies that there are other, albeit lesser-known, applications.

Webster's does not limit all uses of "church" to Christian ones, but it sometimes has a specifically Christian sense, and an example of that specifically Christian usage of "church" is found in Webster's definition of "canon law". Otherwise, it's not accurate.


In any event, more westerners are familiar with the phrase "canon law" than "sharia law."

That's quite possibly true today (though, unfortunately, probably not true a couple of generations hence).


If the reporter was trying to place it into a familiar context for his readers, his use was perfectly correct.

The reporter didn't use the term; the OP did. I understand your point, but under those circumstances the use might have been justifiable, which is not the same thing as "perfectly correct".

Hey, I said it was just a nitpick.


In Buddhism, we call the collection of ancient Pali texts the Pali Canon. So the word can most definently be used outside Catholicism/Christianity.

That's true of the word "canon" by itself, obviously, but not, in my opinion, of "canon law".

Abdul Alhazred
18th July 2006, 11:44 AM
So they are becoming "liberals" now?

Will it matter in the hinterlands?

Beady
18th July 2006, 12:00 PM
The reporter didn't use the term; the OP did.

The OP was a direct quote of the reporter.

Hey, I said it was just a nitpick.

Consider your own nits picked. :D

That's true of the word "canon" by itself, obviously, but not, in my opinion, of "canon law".

To quote my younger son's sergeant, "Opinions are like **********; everyone has one, and they all stink."

ceo_esq
18th July 2006, 12:20 PM
The OP was a direct quote of the reporter.

I meant only the thread title, sorry. I don't think it appeared anywhere in the body of the post.


To quote my younger son's sergeant, "Opinions are like **********; everyone has one, and they all stink."

Sir, yes, sir!

:D