While browsing through the Jordan Times website, I found the following statistics, which I found very intriguing:
The number of Jordanian women filing for divorce at the Amman Sharia Court, under what is widely
known as the khuloe law, has doubled over the past two years. In 2003, 376 women filed khuloe cases, of which 37 cases were settled. But in 2004, the number increased to 852 khuloe cases at the same court, and Sharia judges settled 111 cases, the Jordan News Agency, Petra, reported.
While I should not celebrate the breakup of families, I’m quite happy that women are getting equal rights as men when it comes to divorce. This victory, however, may not last thanks to the brilliant work of some Jordanian MPs.
Women’s rights campaigners suffered a blow when the Lower House twice rejected the amended Personal Status Law in 2003 and 2004. Many deputies charged then that the law encouraged immorality, was against Islamic Sharia and disintegrated family values.
However, there is still hope. Let’s just wait and see.
The Upper House upheld the government’s amendments but no date has been set for a joint session vote, which will require a two-thirds majority for the legislation to be passed. The temporary khuloe law remains in effect until the two Houses vote on it.
Kinzi, yeah culturally ure not in the greatest position, but as for the shari3a…its hard to see the beauty of a flower in bloom when all we are used to is the withering.
Nas, good thoughts. I must say, as one living at the bottom of the human food chain in the Middle East (American, Christian female – 3 strikes I’m out)there is nothing of Shari’a that remotely reminds me of a flower.
Kinzi, you are absolutly right, but going back to what i said ” If we had the full shari3a in an islamic state we’d be ok.”
i’m really talking about the application of shari3a in the wrong environment. shari3a is like a flower that requires and islamic state as its soil. what we have now is a dwindling judicial system because the flower has no soil.
i think we got into the islamic state dialouge because i was replying to questions linda and natasha posed.
but yeah i can see that it is impossible given today’s reality. i am a realist but with a ray of optimism in this arena.
Nas,
Very interesting comments made. Where would these men be, who don’t operate on their own whims and desires? That is the reason why what you are desiring just won’t happen in an Islamic society, or any society. I always appreciate an optimist, but living in Jordan I don’t see it ever happening. My goodness, people work so hard to get around the most basic traffic laws, how would the weightier and more personally costly matters of life be transformed as you say?
In any case you are wrong because if this sort of state did exist in Jordan then no i would not leave, why should i leave? It is my country and my home. That’s just like me telling you that if you want to not drink alcohol or eat pork then you should go live in Saudi or Iran????
⇒ what i meant was that if u are the kind of muslim who prefers to drink and eat pork then perhaps this isnt the state for u. taking into account that jordan would become an islamic state “over night”, u might not like it anymore. allahu a3lam 6ab3an i dont know u so i wont reserve any judgement, forgive me if i did.
So in any case why should the state restrict the availability of alcohol and pork to me especially if this restriction is not based on any health or practical concerns, but on the supernatural beleifs of some????
⇒ well sir these arnt “supernatural” beliefs. they are perscribed in the quran very clearly. they are based on a great deal of logic. the state would restrict them because they would become a social problem. the same way america outlaws prostitution, marijana and middle easterners 😀
In any case this sort of ‘Islamic state’ is a contradiction in terms, Since the whole concept of religious is based on Belief, and not imperical evidence, then how can personal religious beleifs become the system of rule in the state??? all this would do is open up the state to abuse by those who see themselves as ‘holier’ than the rest, examples abound.
⇒ first the state is not based on the personal belief of one or two people, it is the majority that rules. that being said, the laws and running of an islamic state are not based on things which are made up as we go along. they are simply a government and judicial system and society running on islamic guidelines constantly in a state of checks and balances.
In any case i do hope that we see such an islamic state in the Arab world, because that would fully put its popular mythical appeal to rest, as i am 100% confident it would be an economic, social and political disaster. What the people in our region need is a powerfull state that is capable of protecting them and their interests on the international arena, all the while respecting their freedoms and rights as citizens within it. What we dont need is to be told what to do, and what to eat, and what to wear, and with what foot to step into the toilet by some old bearded men whose only pre-occupation is how they get themsleves to heaven.
⇒ the islamic state is not a communist one where the government orders people what to do. it takes into consideration first what the majority do not want. there are bars in jordan but the majority of jordanians do not drink (for example). I, as a muslim, follow my religion the best i can and so do most of whom i know, in that sense we are the people running the state and/or the state and the people become entwined. the main difference between that and the status quo is that u wudnt see bars or alcohol being sold publically to muslims, you would not see an offensive media, and other such small things. All in all the islamic state is for the betterment of society, it does however have many pre-requisites which i admit the status quo does not provide and hence it would be disasterous as we’ve seen in iran.
above all, the state needs to be run effeciently and not by people (be they muftis, caliphs, or politicians) who operate to their own whims, deseries and agendas (such as many in saudia).
thank you
natasha, sorry i missed that one in the copy/paste.
6- Would women still get half the share of inheritance even if they were not married and were supporting themselves like it is the case with many women nowadays?
the inheritance law is set for the following reason. i have two sisters and a mother. God forbid my father dies i will get half and they will get the rest devided amongst them (or something like that, theres percentage). the reason for this is the following. the half that i have i have to use it to support the female members in my family. the inheritance of my sisters and mother are for them and they (in theory) can keep that money and never spend it and ask me to support them. Hence ultimatly (money wise) im at the disadvantage.
that being said, given today’s circumstances it would make no difference. both my sisters mashallah are independent and working. if they should inherit i would use my inheritance to support them (unless they pardon me) and they can throw away their money if they wish it.
Sorry nas, but you did not anwser my questions, im not seeking to be holy at all! I doubt any person in their right mind would go to the state to make them a holier person!
In any case you are wrong because if this sort of state did exist in Jordan then no i would not leave, why should i leave? It is my country and my home. That’s just like me telling you that if you want to not drink alcohol or eat pork then you should go live in Saudi or Iran????
So in any case why should the state restrict the availability of alcohol and pork to me especially if this restriction is not based on any health or practical concerns, but on the supernatural beleifs of some????
In any case this sort of ‘Islamic state’ is a contradiction in terms, Since the whole concept of religious is based on Belief, and not imperical evidence, then how can personal religious beleifs become the system of rule in the state??? all this would do is open up the state to abuse by those who see themselves as ‘holier’ than the rest, examples abound.
In any case i do hope that we see such an islamic state in the Arab world, because that would fully put its popular mythical appeal to rest, as i am 100% confident it would be an economic, social and political disaster. What the people in our region need is a powerfull state that is capable of protecting them and their interests on the international arena, all the while respecting their freedoms and rights as citizens within it. What we dont need is to be told what to do, and what to eat, and what to wear, and with what foot to step into the toilet by some old bearded men whose only pre-occupation is how they get themsleves to heaven.
Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions, but what about the inheritance? You didn’t reply to this.
onzlo, if u are a muslim it is ure decision to drink or not. it is as u know haram but irregardless the accountability and responsibility of the sin is upon the bearer, that being you. under an islamic state no one is restricting your ability to drink, the state is not a solution to make people holy any more than placing ure right hand on a bible renders u unable to tell a lie in court. all that the state is concerned with is containing the means to which alcohol or pork is available i.e. to non-muslims only.
but all in all…if such a state did exist? u wud probably leave to another country and that would be fine with the rest of us. of course i dont know you personally sir but that would be my assessment based on what you’ve told me.
thank you
4- Would it ban alcohol? – Imam abu-haniefah said that it was agreed upon in Islam that non-muslims could follow their own customs of eating pork, drinking alcohol as long as its in the scope of the shari3a. so, there would be a difference between getting together with your family (im assuming ure christian) and drinking alcohol, but its another thing to open a store to sell it, i.e. to make it wide spread.
______________________________________________
Hey wait a second! what about me? Im muslim (using the broader meaning of the term), but i want to have my beer! why shouldent i be able to??? i want to go out at night to a nightclub or bar, in my country where i was born and where i shall die, what gives anyone the right to prevent me from doing so, just because of their own religious beleifs??? if they dont want to join me then they are free to do so, i don’t impose any lifestyle on anyone else, so what gives anyone else the right to impose their lifestyle on me???
And the same goes to the other issues…