17 May '07 06:20>13 edits
Originally posted by VarqaThere is at least one major flaw in your analogy as it pertains to the issue at hand (which is whether Islamic law fails to respect human rights): there is no country in the world today that implements Levitical or Corinthian law. There is no predominantly Christian nation whose modern-day laws actually call for a woman to be shorn should she fail to cover herself.
But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and ...[text shortened]... we can do about it. So let's just go on sinning and simply believe that our sins are paid for.
Contrast this with Iran and other Islamic nations where Islamic law is the law of the land, in accordance with which women are lawfully beaten and adulterers are actually stoned to death in modern times.
As a matter of personal belief and religion, sure fundamental Islam is not necessarily any worse that fundamental Christianity. It is obviously wrong to shear or beat women, and which is worse isn't really a debate that interests me. But as a matter of practice, as beliefs are actually implemented as law, the Islamic world is far, far worse. Modern Christian nations at least have the sense to recognize that you can't as a matter of law call for the shearing of women, even if their citizens believe on some level that in God's eyes they ought to be shorn. In the Islamic world, however, they actually saw people's limbs off as criminal punishment, for God's sake, merely because the Koran calls for eye for an eye justice.