Shikha Dalmia in TIME on How Sharia is Liberating Saudi Women
Sharia that advises men to treat women like their property is symptomatic of everything that is wrong with Islam in the eyes of the West. But Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia points out in a TIME column this morning that this "backward" law is what Saudi women are using to fight for their rights. It is worth remembering, she notes that:
arguments that are regressive in one context are progressive in another. There are universal rights, but not a universally valid playbook for achieving them. Western freedoms too were won by precisely such piecemeal, ad hominem arguments.
John Locke, the English 17th Century political theorist credited with launching the Enlightenment, argued for the separation of church and state — the centerpiece of liberal democracy — not by a frontal assault on Christianity.
Rather, he used the New Testament's own central teaching — that faith when forced brings no salvation — to stop the state from imposing one official religion.
Go here to read the whole thing.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
How quaint.
I a sure she will be writing about how traditional Christian values are liberating American women real soon.
Nice piece, but it should be "ad hoc," not "ad hominem." "Ad hoc" means "suited (only) to the particular matter at hand," while "ad hominem" means "against the man"--like refuting Chris Christie's arguments by calling him a loud-mouthed lardbutt.
Another meaning of ad hominem is using arguments appealing to prejudice, interest or emotion.But agree this usage might be confusing.
http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/Philojargon.html
...no.
Newton's 3rd law, unintended consequences, etc, etc. Yep.
"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
Take a letter, Sharia
Send it to my wives
Send a copy to my Imam
Gonna start a new life.
Does not your law say that good is stronger than evil?
Does Ms Dalmia's defense of the tactical arguments of Arabian women libbers (which I actually agree with) also apply to, say Sen Paul, when he says things which are not libertarian?