The subjugation of women wasn't something that happened over the centuries; it was already present in many Quran verses. It clearly states that a women's testimony is worth half that of a man's. Isn't this subjugation already? Moreover, domestic violence against women is also encouraged here.
Subjugation of women is a function of society. People then start (ab)using religion to justify it & persuade others. Pick the interpretation to suit the politics surrounding that interpretation. Varies by region, tradition & tribal practices. On top of this you have different schools of thought.
How to generalise in this sort of environment
Sharia law also deals with crimes and punishment. Yes, it is applied as a catchall without quoting the context in press, and its interpretation is left to the state and the parties involved, but that doesn't mean it's being misused. You are sinking into no true Scotsman fallacy here, which many religious apologists also use to defend their religions' irrationality.
Which countries use sharia for crimes & punishment in the muslim world ? saudis & sudan.
Even the paks don't use it. The tribal areas are different because the writ of the state does not extend there. The law is whatever the strongman that controls the village says it is.
Not sinking into the fallacy at all, just enumerating differences. In fact what is & isn't islamic is a big political tug of war that waxes and wanes with politics. Its about power and how its wielded. The irrationality stems from the politics.
Sharia in India is only applicable for civil cases, as criminal laws override any other personal religious laws in a secular country.
Right, and its the same in the majority of muslim countries out there as well. Believe it or not. This is what affects the bulk of muslims in the world. That is what i refer to as sharia or muslim law. But in the popular press sharia means harsh punishments or whatever else you want to add.
This is not the case in many theocratic countries though.
How many theocratic countries are there ? iran is the only one. Their system is unique. The ayatollah is the closest the muslim world ever comes to having a pope. Otherwise the norm is to be decentralised.
Saudis aren't theocratic, they're monarchs. They appease the religious hardliners who in turn provide them with legitimacy.
The problem is not with it creeping into peace time use, because there was no clause given in the laws that it was intended only for war time purposes. It's being used exactly what it was intended for.
Compliance is pretty low in the majority of muslim countries then isn't it if Hudood is an exception rather than the norm.
However, the society has moved on and reformed itself immensely over the centuries, and the religion and its laws needs to be reformed to bring them in line with current times. The word "reform" is the key, which not many conservatives want to go through.
Compared to the earlier times, today, we understand crimes better, their causes, know how to investigate them, and we also have a large range of punishments to choose from.
Some sectoins of society have reformed and moved on. The harder part is bringing along the rest.
India is a conservative country. See the difference between society in the cities and the villages. Rurals dominate, the urbanites are in the minority. What passes as the norm in the city can be very different out in the country.
