There is no topic that requires no debate

Today I read a fascinating article on the responses to a new Tunisian film, Shtar Mahaba that raises the issue of how Islamic law determines the distribution of inheritances between male and female heirs:

'The director [Kalthoum Bornaz] has been accused of differing with sharia. Bornaz countered that she did not create Shtar Mahaba (half the love) to create sedition or cast doubts on the Qur’anic verse that explains inheritance and its distribution among male and female heirs. "I am not into politics or Islamic jurisprudence," said Bornaz. "I am a filmmaker and an artist. I only want to discuss the issue of inheritance from a humane and social perspective."'

Below the online article are several comments left by people voicing their support of Bornaz's decision to tackle this issue, and admiration of her courage, as well those voicing their condemnation. It is interesting to linger a while over these condemnations. Here are two examples:
1) 'In such conditions, the state must issue court orders against anyone who dares to violate religion in one of its principles which is defined by religion. This topic requires no debate because it causes strife of ignorant people like her whose numbers are highly increasing in the Maghreb recently.'
2) 'The religion of God is eternal against their will. We are astonished at the Tunisian authorities and their censorship which allow such violations of the religion of God. But if they were against their president Ben Ali, there would have been a commotion. But these are just the words of God, so there is no problem.'

The tone of the above-quoted comments is of course rather aggressive, but that is not the issue here. The commentators' intent is clear even if they were to have couched their order as a gentle entreaty. They are saying: Silence! It is not your place to discuss and question these issues! And that is where we must return to the words of the film's director, Bornaz: 'I want to discuss the issue of inheritance from a humane and social perspective.'. There is no topic that requires no debate, and Muhammad (pbuh) knew that, as did early scholars of Islam. Everything must be discussed in the light of the social and political context in which we live, as we all seek answers to questions of money and property - on the materialistic plane - and to questions of social justice and mercy - on the religious, spiritual plane. As far as I understand, Bornaz is not challenging or endorsing any one particular interpretation of Islamic law - she is saying: my concern is that the men and women of my country are treated with humanity and live in dignity. When one half of the population is left at an economic disadvantage because of 'Sharia' then we should at least confront the consequences of these laws, and discuss whether this is what we want for our daughters.

Those who order our silence are afraid. They are afraid because they know that they cannot defend their stances from the perspectives either of social justice or of the health of the global economy - which depends on an equitable distribution of wealth (contrary to the mantra of the self-appointed gods of Wall St!).