Does legality mean validation?

[tomato1236]

you said
Isn't there some better way for gay people to receive validation?

i threw out segregation because that was the status quo during the civil rights movement...

And then what did I say?

 

[waitasec]

And then what did I say?

was the civil rights movement seeking validation?

 

[tomato1236]

was the civil rights movement seeking validation?

So you're not listening to me intentionally, then.

 

[waitasec]

So you're not listening to me intentionally, then.

i'm sorry maybe i misunderstood you...

this idea of validating same sex marriages seems ridiculous to me.
it's not a question of being validated...it is a question of receiving inalienable rights, equality...being acknowledged
maybe that is what you meant...

 

[Badran]

I think there is terrific and tragic irony in this.

Making same-sex marriage legal doesn't necessarily mean we validate it,
But at the heart of the movement to legalize it, seems to be the desire for validation. There seems to me to be a disconnect. Isn't there some better way for gay people to receive validation?

I think i understand what you're saying. If there is a desire, at least with some people for validation through this, does our making it legal mean that we did validate it?

I don't think it means so, because its only a matter of allowing people what they should have been allowed to do in the first place. If there weren't such strong opposition to this, i don't think it would have mattered much in that case wether or not we viewed it in a positive light.

 

[Badran]

I think this is what some Muslims find difficult to accept in democratic countries. It is that there are no certainties. There is no certainty that religious constraints and civil laws will ever coincide. Law is not required to be validated by religion, nor can it be.

The law surely shouldn't be following religious teachings in general, neither should there be any power for certain religious figures for example to legislate. But, in the case of religions that contains rules for the community, and that religion being followed by a majority of people in a certain country, shouldn't that be evident somehow in the law of that country?

 

[waitasec]

I think i understand what you're saying. If there is a desire, at least with some people for validation through this, does our making it legal mean that we did validate it?

I don't think it means so, because its only a matter of allowing people what they should have been allowed to do in the first place. If there weren't such strong opposition to this, i don't think it would have mattered much in that case wether or not we viewed it in a positive light.

thank you badran...you expressed exactly what i was trying to convey to tomato... frubals to you

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The law surely shouldn't be following religious teachings in general, neither should there be any power for certain religious figures for example to legislate. But, in the case of religions that contains rules for the community, and that religion being followed by a majority of people in a certain country, shouldn't that be evident somehow in the law of that country?

On the face of it that might seem true.

However most of Europe is subject to the European Court of human rights. And other countries are also subject to other international human rights legislation.

Such countries do not have the right to create laws (Religious or otherwise) that counter those Human rights.

The UK is having to introduce voting rights for prisoners convicted of crimes, as we were found in breech of their human rights... In the UK prisoners have always been barred from voting. we must now change our UK law.

It is evident that in the west we are subject to international law, which can override our domestic law.

 

[Badran]

On the face of it that might seem true.

However most of Europe is subject to the European Court of human rights. And other countries are also subject to other international human rights legislation.

Such countries do not have the right to create laws (Religious or otherwise) that counter those Human rights.

The UK is having to introduce voting rights for prisoners convicted of crimes, as we were found in breech of their human rights... In the UK prisoners have always been barred from voting. we must now change our UK law.

It is evident that in the west we are subject to international law, which can override our domestic law.

I wasn't saying that this is the way it is, i was asking about the concept itself. As i think you disagree with it, so i was asking why shouldn't those values held by the majority of people be evident in the law, with restrictions of course as not to oppress minorities in that country.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I wasn't saying that this is the way it is, i was asking about the concept itself. As i think you disagree with it, so i was asking why shouldn't those values held by the majority of people be evident in the law, with restrictions of course as not to oppress minorities in that country.

What you are suggesting was always the case in the past, that is before the human rights issues were accepted internationally.

A few countries do still hold out against international law.

International law is still bases on the "majority" principal, however by its nature it is even more reflective of the worlds view of human justice.

It would be a sad day if we went back to the medieval system.

 

[Bismillah]

Badran: Can a non-Muslim proselytize in a true Sharia country?

 

[LuisDantas]

I think there is terrific and tragic irony in this.

Making same-sex marriage legal doesn't necessarily mean we validate it,
But at the heart of the movement to legalize it, seems to be the desire for validation. There seems to me to be a disconnect. Isn't there some better way for gay people to receive validation?

There is certainly a desire for validation and full acceptance, and a very open one at that.

Are you asking if legalizing same-sex marriages couldn't end up being an ineffective measure? I think I can see your point, and sure, it won't ensure either validation or acceptance. Then again, laws are not supposed to have such power anyway.

I support SSM not because I expect its legalization to make people accept homosexuals - in fact, it would be a bit sad if it happened due to a law being passed. I very much want homosexuality to be fully accepted, but laws must be the consequence, not the cause, of such acceptance.

Ultimately, laws are the wrong tool for societal change.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

There is certainly a desire for validation and full acceptance, and a very open one at that.

Are you asking if legalizing same-sex marriages couldn't end up being an ineffective measure? I think I can see your point, and sure, it won't ensure either validation or acceptance. Then again, laws are not supposed to have such power anyway.

I support SSM not because I expect its legalization to make people accept homosexuals - in fact, it would be a bit sad if it happened due to a law being passed. I very much want homosexuality to be fully accepted, but laws must be the consequence, not the cause, of such acceptance.

Ultimately, laws are the wrong tool for societal change.

Laws change to reflect the changes already taken place in society.
Until a view becomes a majority one, there is no posability of changing the law.

 

[Badran]

What you are suggesting was always the case in the past, that is before the human rights issues were accepted internationally.

A few countries do still hold out against international law.

International law is still bases on the "majority" principal, however by its nature it is even more reflective of the worlds view of human justice.

It would be a sad day if we went back to the medieval system.

I can see you have a pretty bad idea about what system i have in mind. Let me first just say that i don't even have such system all figured out, nor am i talking about anything close to how some countries today enforce a supposed Islamic system.

My only point is, as i don't believe in a "world system" being enforced, that naturally majority should have some sort of reflection in the law of that certain country, and i emphasize without forcing things on minorities for example as much as possible. Also note that in this thread in particular i'm discussing an instance where that opinion of the majority is indeed unrelated. That is what i mean when i say without restricting others. So i can see your point, but i'm saying that in the same time it shouldn't be completely unrelated, in the case of religions which contain stuff for the community, and that religion being followed by a majority in the country.

 

[Badran]

Badran: Can a non-Muslim proselytize in a true Sharia country?

I can't see why not. Why should Muslims be able to do so in countries where they are not a majority, and the opposite shouldn't be allowed? I'm not saying that this your opinion (as you didn't say), i'm just telling you how i view it.

I'm not aware of anything that suggests that a non-muslim shouldn't be allowed to do so, aside from certain opinions that say so. Is there any reference in Islamic teachings for that?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I can see you have a pretty bad idea about what system i have in mind. Let me first just say that i don't even have such system all figured out, nor am i talking about anything close to how some countries today enforce a supposed Islamic system.

My only point is, as i don't believe in a "world system" being enforced, that naturally majority should have some sort of reflection in the law of that certain country, and i emphasize without forcing things on minorities for example as much as possible. Also note that in this thread in particular i'm discussing an instance where that opinion of the majority is indeed unrelated. That is what i mean when i say without restricting others. So i can see your point, but i'm saying that in the same time it shouldn't be completely unrelated, in the case of religions which contain stuff for the community, and that religion being followed by a majority in the country.

What you are describing is the law as it was in the UK up to the 18th century.
The church had a direct input into the law. You could be fined or imprisoned for not going to church, or not going to the Church of England. Jews and Catholics were heavily proscribed in the law. This was the majority view supported by the people.

Muslims were not a problem, they were seen a heathens and would only have come into the country as servants or slaves.

My own family at the time were unitarians, and for many years under constant threat of imprisonment.

We can look back today and see that such a system is totally wrong.

You can not put the dJinn back in the bottle, nor can you isolate what one country does from the rest of the world.

 

[Bismillah]

I'm not aware of anything that suggests that a non-muslim shouldn't be allowed to do so, aside from certain opinions that say so. Is there any reference in Islamic teachings for that?

I am under the impression that Sharia law prohibits proselytizing of other religions upon Muslims.

 

[Sajdah]

I was having a discussion some time ago with my family and some relatives, about other religious followers having their religion listed on ID cards here in Egypt. Some held the opinion that doing this would mean that we validate those other religions (aside from Judaism, christianity and Islam), and that we shouldn't do that. I thought that was nonsense and i kept arguing about that.

I don't think it is a validation to their religion, it is just a way to know how many are they, and to distinguish them from Muslims. I think it is better than being labeled Muslims and their actions prove the contrary!

I realized later on that i use this same poor logic in other instances. Such as the case with homosexuals having the right to be married in an Islamic country.

Those are two different arguments, saying that Islamic Shari'a is the law of that country, then everyone should abide by it. When Shari'a gives non-Muslims the rights of practicing their beliefs, then you have no say after that, and that same Shari'a forbids sodomy and makes it punishable then every believer should abide by that. I'm sorry Badran, your opinion is irrelative when it comes to Shari'a and its rules. The society you're describing here is secular, not Islamic, as I see so far, you want everyone to do everything they wish even if it was contradictory to the teachings of Islam.

(Of course, in case any muslim is wondering, it goes without saying that in order for me to say this, i obviously don't agree with the opinion that homosexuals should be punished for having a relationship with their same sex).

If there were 4 witnesses of the act, why is it not punishable? May I know whose opinion is that? A scholar or just your own opinion?

 

[Badran]

What you are describing is the law as it was in the UK up to the 18th century.
The church had a direct input into the law. You could be fined or imprisoned for not going to church, or not going to the Church of England. Jews and Catholics were heavily proscribed in the law. This was the majority view supported by the people.

Muslims were not a problem, they were seen a heathens and would only have come into the country as servants or slaves.

My own family at the time were unitarians, and for many years under constant threat of imprisonment.

We can look back today and see that such a system is totally wrong.

You can not put the dJinn back in the bottle, nor can you isolate what one country does from the rest of the world.

Thats where you keep misunderstanding what i have in mind. In the situation which i'm talking about, such things would never happen. There is no such things as any kind of consequences for following a certain religion, and that will be enforced by the law.

Also, there will be no religious figures having authority, or religious police.

 

[Badran]

I am under the impression that Sharia law prohibits proselytizing of other religions upon Muslims.

Well i know that this opinion exist, but i'm afraid it doesn't make any sense, neither have i seen anything to support it. Not to mention that its obviously unfair, and can only speak poorly about Muslims. As it seems we're afraid that other religions be available and proselytized in countries containing a majority of Muslims. Thats why the system i have in mind is very different from today's supposed Islamic systems, as i disagree with a lot of the things done.