Let me begin with a statement that surely is not politically correct. As tthe three monotheistic religions are generally practiced, Islam is most out of step with the idea of equality of women as we now conceive of things in Western societies. Certainly, Christianity is accepting of women being major players in society-at-large. However, even Orthodox Judaism, which sharply limits the role that women have in religious service, is quite compatible with—perhaps even encouraging of—woman being major players in society-at-large. With Christianity and Judaism, only fringe groups seems to think women should not be major players in society-at-large.
Islam, however, is another matter entirely. The idea that women should not be major players in society-at-large is common enough among Muslims generally. And in Muslim circles, one can without too much difficulty find those who think that a woman should be subordinate to men, where the subordination does not call to mind chivalry at all. In Paris, I often watched entirely covered Muslim women (that is women wearing the burqua) lower their eyes to keep from glancing at males dressed in a lascivious manner. Yet, I have noticed that Muslim men do not behave in a like manner. And the observation here has been with regard to Muslim couples. One could agree that the requirements of modesty are more stringent for women without thinking that these requirements do not apply to men at all. It seems to me that if a married women should not gaze at lasciviously dressed men, then in a like manner married men should not gaze at lasciviously dressed women.
This brings me to Ontario, Canada. In the 90s, Ontario tried something rather novel, namely allowing religious traditions to serve as a court of arbitration for those who agreed to it. So, for instance, three rabbis (rather than a Canadian court) might be used to settle a dispute between a Jewish storeowner and a Jewish offender, should the owner and the offender agree to it.
At first glance, this seemed to have been a win-win situation. 1. The courts have less to deal with. 2. Religious individuals get to have their situations judged in accordance with standards that are dear to their hearts.
Not surprisingly, this idea went rather smoothly with Judaism and Christianity. Why? Because in a very real sense these traditions embody, in various ways and no doubt to varying degrees, the idea of equality of the sexes that has become a part of Western culture. A religious group (Christian or Jewish) might insist that women and men have different roles or that one sex is better at some tasks than others. But the total picture has increasingly been one of equality. After all, no one can reasonably think that equality has to mean everyone is completely identical; for it is obvious that human beings do not satisfy that condition.
The problem with Ontario’s novel idea was Islam law or Sharia. For there are aspects of Sharia that are roundly out of step with the idea of equality between the sexes. What is more, there are far too many Muslims who readily appeal to Sharia. Indeed, a most significant worry was that there are women who might be the Muslim female equivalent of an Uncle Tom. If a Muslim woman accepts that she should be entirely covered in a burqua, is she the Muslim female equivalent of an Uncle Tom? If not, why not?
At any rate, out of fear that Sharia law would be applied to Muslim women in cases of arbitration, Ontario repealed its policy of allowing religious traditions to serve as a court of arbitration.
No doubt this was a tremendous victory for Muslims and non-Muslims alike fearing the application of Muslim traditions hostile to the idea of female equality. However, the revocation of the practice of using religions traditions as a court of arbitration (for those who wanted it) was a stinging defeat for Christians and Jews.
Is Ontario better off for having revoked the practice? I believe not. You see, Sharia law also allows for stoning. Indeed, stoning does take place in some Islamic cultures. In fact, Judaic law talks about stoning as well. But we have all more or less come to see that stoning is out of place. And we will not abide it. Ontario should have taken precisely this stance generally and with women in particular. The view should have been that religious courts of arbitration are acceptable so long as the outcome is consistent with Canadian law and the ideal of equality towards which it aspires.
It goes without saying that such a stance would have favored Christian and Jewish arbitration over Islamic arbitration. But this stance would have been better than opting for brute equality. Brute equality is often a way of not standing for anything all the while pretending that one is equality’s torchbearer. Have we in the West become so politically correct that we are afraid to say that equality for all is an ideal to which we all aspire and towards which we expect all others to aspire? As you rush to say “Of course we are not that afraid!,” my view is that the revocation that took place in Ontario was not an affirmation of a society’s commitment to equality for all, but in an indication of how cowardly we have become in the face of what is supposed to be an incredible good, namely diversity.
