Should secular societies allow Sharia Law?

[YmirGF]

*MOD POST: Thread moved into the general debates from the Islam DIR*

Given the comments of some Muslims on RF, that Islam is not compatible with Secularism, should secular societies allow Sharia law to be enacted within secular societies?

Link to Not4me's thread: Secularism vs Islam

There is no doubt that secularism contradicts Islam in every aspect. They are two different paths that never meet; choosing one means rejecting the other. Hence, whoever chooses Islam has to reject secularism.

After making your selection in the poll, please comment on your vote, if you feel so inclined.

If yes, why so?
If not, why not?
If you are unsure, why are you unsure?

DO share your thoughts.

 

[Tiapan]

No

For reasons stated

Given the comments of some Muslims on RF, that Islam is not compatible with Secularism, eg not-4-me who put the case so eloquently.

Cheers

 

[LuisDantas]

By definition a secularist society should avoid either favoring or disfavoring religious concepts, so no. It shouldn't go out of its way to avoid the application of Sharia Law, either; to the extent that Muslims and their religious authorities can make it work without conflict to the common law, they should be left free to do so. Things such as acceptable funeral services, diet restrictions and marriage customs can largely be accommodated for without conflict, and there is no point to seek such a conflict.

 

[Ordeet]

Acceptance has to go both ways. You are both a giver and a receiver of acceptance. For example, my neighbors accept my right to live in my house peacefully, and I accept their right to do the same. When this covenant of trust is broken, the system breaks down.

There can be no acceptance of non-acceptance, and no tolerance of intolerance.

Can secularists establish their own organizations in Saudi Arabia or Iran? I know for a fact they can't do so in Iran, because one of my close friends in my law school is a political dissident from Iran who got kicked out for calling for secular reform. Therefore if it is not reciprocated, why do we have to go to the lengths to accomadate those who wish to betray our sacred rights?

 

[Gharib]

i voted for yes, naturally.

the reason being is that islam allows non-islamic laws to function within the islamic society so long as they are just and are applied to the non-muslims (an example of an unjust western law at present would be the law where even though the government has wronged a citizen, the citizen has no case against the government) . so i recon the same thing should happen here, muslims should be allowed to be judged by the appropriate islamic authorities for a crime that is punishable.

seem reasonable?

 

[MissAlice]

I don't think so, at least for now.

The two seem to share complete opposing views.

 

[Madhuri]

i voted for yes, naturally.

the reason being is that islam allows non-islamic laws to function within the islamic society so long as they are just and are applied to the non-muslims (an example of an unjust western law at present would be the law where even though the government has wronged a citizen, the citizen has no case against the government) . so i recon the same thing should happen here, muslims should be allowed to be judged by the appropriate islamic authorities for a crime that is punishable.

seem reasonable?

It wouldn't work though, because then any group could instil their own set of laws and the national legal system would be rendered useless.

 

[Gharib]

It wouldn't work though, because then any group could instil their own set of laws and the national legal system would be rendered useless.

i was only reffering to the sharia law though. but if other people have their own laws, which they do, and they live their lives according to those as much as they can, then the legal system has never really been very useful. it's only been a common law to diminish the other differing laws that each society lives by. there are times when the national law is wrong, i was listening to the radio awhile ago and the speaker was saying how the laws of england and australia are too leniant towards the criminal instead of the victim. with all those dfferent set of laws out there i'm sure everyone would agree that being too lenient towards the crminal is wrong ad unjust to the victim.

 

[Madhuri]

i was only reffering to the sharia law though. but if other people have their own laws, which they do, and they live their lives according to those as much as they can, then the legal system has never really been very useful. it's only been a common law to diminish the other differing laws that each society lives by. there are times when the national law is wrong, i was listening to the radio awhile ago and the speaker was saying how the laws of england and australia are too leniant towards the criminal instead of the victim. with all those dfferent set of laws out there i'm sure everyone would agree that being too lenient towards the crminal is wrong ad unjust to the victim.

What do you mean that different people have their own laws?

 

[LuisDantas]

(an example of an unjust western law at present would be the law where even though the government has wronged a citizen, the citizen has no case against the government)

Esalam, this caught my eye. It is possible for an individual to sue the government in most secular societies, but I believe that is not what you are talking about, correct?

I'm very curious about this. What does Sharia Law suggest or does differently from secular law in such a situation? May you please tell me?

 

[LuisDantas]

i was only reffering to the sharia law though. but if other people have their own laws, which they do, and they live their lives according to those as much as they can, then the legal system has never really been very useful. it's only been a common law to diminish the other differing laws that each society lives by.

Why is that not very useful?

Would you agree that the purpose of law is to establish

1) rules that are backed up by the governmental authorities;

2) consequences for following (or breaking) those rules; and

3) arbiters and other authorities involved with the enforcement of those rules?

Is there any significant element that you feel is missing or extraneous, or that would be missing or extraneous specifically for secular or Sharia Law?

there are times when the national law is wrong, i was listening to the radio awhile ago and the speaker was saying how the laws of england and australia are too leniant towards the criminal instead of the victim.

(The following paragraph is perhaps a bit too opiniated for a DIR, but I feel that I need it to make my opinion clear. I apologize in advance if it is somehow inappropriate for this DIR.)

No doubt. Law is wrong to some degree, as a matter of course. That is one of the reasons why I personally find reliance on it to be a serious mistake. Law is a safety net of sorts, when it is working perfectly. It is not an instrument of social change or moral advancement, and could never be.

with all those different set of laws out there i'm sure everyone would agree that being too lenient towards the criminal is wrong ad unjust to the victim.

Not necessarily, and I don't understand why having many different sets of laws makes a difference on this matter. Surely having just one law that is still too lenient is not any better?

Still, as explained above, I believe that it is a strategic mistake to rely on law to bring justice to society. It takes moral and social maturity to bring justice. Law is a stopgap measure at best.

 

[Gharib]

What do you mean that different people have their own laws?

i mean religious groups, such as muslims, hindus, jews etc. we all have our own laws that we live by.

 

[Madhuri]

i mean religious groups, such as muslims, hindus, jews etc. we all have our own laws that we live by.

Not if they go against the laws of the country we live in. But I've never experienced a clash in my beliefs and the laws in this country that have restricted me in any way.

 

[Tiapan]

What exists in sharia law, that does not already exist in common law, that we would want?

Cheers

 

[Kerr]

Voted no since I can see issues with having several sets of laws. But that would be another discussion, and since this is the dir, I will not go into that.

 

[Tarheeler]

Because the question asks if it should be allowed in a secular society, I'd have to say yes. In saying that, I mean that religious groups in a society should be free to live by their religious laws, provided that they do not contradict civil law.

I have no problem with religious courts that mediate disputes among that particular group and make rulings that have force in within that group (providing all members agree). I see it as being no different as two parties to a contract agreeing to private mediation whose decisions are binding.

The key here is that the religious laws can not go against existing civil laws and the rulings of the religious courts cannot carry true legal weight. They are limited only to their respective groups and carry only social ramifications. I don't think anyone should ever be forced to follow the fasting of Ramadan or Jewish dietary laws.

Now, if the question has asked if it should be allowed in the government, then that would be a definite no.

 

[Caladan]

Good post Tarheeler, it has been the case with several religious groups and the larger society for a while.
I'm thinking that the main concern and challenge is keeping the different courts live up to the standard of the expanded society.

 

[sandandfoam]

I have no problem with Sharia Law and secular society.
We've had Canon law and secular society for a long time.
Of course the law of the land is superior to both. As it should be.

 

[Aquitaine]

I voted No.

I voted this because a Secular society should not favour religious values, and since Sharia Law is a religious law code, it thus should not be implemented.

Not only that, but it appears that even the Muslims disagree on what "makes" Sharia Law, kinda like the No True Scotsman thing.

 

[Gharib]

Esalam, this caught my eye. It is possible for an individual to sue the government in most secular societies, but I believe that is not what you are talking about, correct?

my intention was to show that in the secular run governments those with money and power do not have to answer to the laws like the rest of us.

for example there is a newlaw that is being introduced in australias health system, if a patient is late for 5 minutes or more, they will get charged, but it is a fact that doctors themselves are late for the appointment, they may get held up by another patient or something, but surprisingly they don't get charged for leaving the other patient waiting.

I'm very curious about this. What does Sharia Law suggest or does differently from secular law in such a situation? May you please tell me?

in sharia law it doesn't matter who you are or who you think you may be, the same law applies to all. furthermore in order for the ruling to be just and fair, there is a criteria that the judge must have ticks on all boxes beforehe can hear about the case. some include: he must not be hungry, must not be needing to go to the toilet, must not be in a fight with his wife etc etc because he may rush the judgement as a result of his situation.

during preparation for war, the prophet poked one of the men whose stomach was stading out of line, but the man was quite big in his physical build and had no where back to go, so he said to the prophet that he wanted to take revenge for the injustice done to him, so the prophet gave him the stick and lifted his shirt for the man to hit him in return.
thats how islamic laws function.

Moreover in another hadith some men were disputing the matter of a rich woman who had stolen. they were affraid as to what to do due to her being rich. the matter reached the prophet and he said that is his daughter Fatima (ra) had stolen he would have cut off her hand.

does that answer your question?