Based on this example, it is not so much that some people are above the law, but rather that different laws apply to different situations. (not that I am justifying any particular laws)
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Should secular societies allow Sharia Law?
- Thread starter YmirGF
- Start date
Based on this example, it is not so much that some people are above the law, but rather that different laws apply to different situations. (not that I am justifying any particular laws)
Gharib
I want Khilafah back
but that is the same situation. either the patient is late or the doctor. one situation 2 outcomes or maybe 3, they are both late. but still the law should be the same, why should a doctor charge his patient and not vice versa?
another example is the airport. today someone i know went to the airport 30 minutes before departure time and the plane had left, now if a these laws were just, the airline would have to give him a free ticket tomorrow, but no he has to pay it. same if you came after departure time, it is your fault, but what about the plane leaving early or latter? why don't they pay us?
I think that in the case of being on time but the plane having already left, the law would be on the passenger's side. He could sue for sure.
The thing about organisations is that they have policies and customers can either agree or disagree to those policies. By using the service, you are agreeing to the policy. So you are agreeing that by being late you will pay the fee but you are also accepting that if the service provider is late, the consequences are different.
Of course, it depends on the organisation. Some will actually have refund policies. This is seen in some work sectors more than others. For instance, in hospitality and tourism, if the organisation messes up they generally make it up to the customer by refunding or giving free services or even paying large sums of money to avoid court battle.
If society wishes to change the operation of any of these matters the people simply have to voice up in unison. Our laws and culture are based in the balance of power.
Gharib
I want Khilafah back
but ever human has his own policy "do not wrong me." the policy of these companies itself is unjust. i have an organisation that people are dependent on so even if i make a law that everyone might hate, they will still go for it. again that is injustice, it's the same as the cigarette prices going up, the government knows people are addicted so in order to take advantage it raises the price, and if it really wanted to stop people smoking it it could just bann it altogether. could it not?
Caladan
Agnostic Pantheist
Im thinking it would be the equivalent for a Jewish Beit Din that they have in the UK. again I think the challenge is in keeping these courts in line with the standards of the society at large. as for a Beit Din in western nations, I think that its worth noting that most Israelis themselves are not happy with Jewish religious traditions injected into legal matters of the larger scociety, so I think these matters should be closely monitored.
Last edited:
Smoke
Done here.
I voted No because the option to vote Absolutely Not was not available.
I think it's very dangerous and short-sighted for the state to parcel out its authority to religious groups. If two Catholics want to divorce, they get a civil divorce and a church annulment. If two Orthodox Christians want to divorce, they get a civil divorce and an ecclesiastical divorce. That's as it should be, and I think it's both logical and wise to separate civil and ecclesiastical marriage, too -- as some countries have done.
From the point of view of the state, an individual's religious status should not and must not affect his civil status; therefore, the rulings of religious courts should have no civil effect whatsoever.
I think it's very dangerous and short-sighted for the state to parcel out its authority to religious groups. If two Catholics want to divorce, they get a civil divorce and a church annulment. If two Orthodox Christians want to divorce, they get a civil divorce and an ecclesiastical divorce. That's as it should be, and I think it's both logical and wise to separate civil and ecclesiastical marriage, too -- as some countries have done.
From the point of view of the state, an individual's religious status should not and must not affect his civil status; therefore, the rulings of religious courts should have no civil effect whatsoever.
Caladan
Agnostic Pantheist
I wish it was so. I wish we could 'indoctrinate' people to live by the legal standards of everyone else in society.
That has nothing to do with secular societies.
I voted yes, but not yes it "should", more like yes it "could".
I think it can be worked out. I think you got a wrong impression though on how muslims view secularism. Yes, it is not the system i would prefer to live in. However, it is not the work of the devil. Not all muslims look at it that way.
For example, some muslims actually accept secularism whole heartedly. As in, they accept the basic idea of religion, not having anything to do with power.
jmvizanko
Uber Tool
Should they allow Nazis to kill Jews? Should they allow Christian Scientists exemption from child abuse laws when their child with epilepsy dies because they prayed for them instead of taking them to the doctor?
I dunno, maybe that whole human rights thing and science are overrated...
Not to be rude or argumentative, but how is this the same?
jmvizanko
Uber Tool
My point is that why should we allow a subset of people to override the civil rights we extend to everyone? I mean, if a Muslim wants to not teach any of the women in his cultural group how to read or be able to drive, so be it. But what place does laws that forbid these things have in a country that recognizes they are absurd civil rights violations?
I see what you're saying, and i expected this. As earlier i saw a post implying that fasting Ramadan is obligatory. This is a common misunderstanding. This case you're referring to, is not sharia, it is a disaster and an example of ignorant cultural values that view women in that light. However, sharia laws are the just a name for implementing the laws of Islam. Because Islam contains moral teachings and society rules for the establishment of an Islamic society. Some of those rules, are made up and not actually from the teachings.
Some of those made up were made up to address new situations that weren't present at the time of the Quran and the our prophet (pbuh), and some others are made up just to meet the fascist nature of some. Fasting ramadan for example, is not obligatory. Maybe, and i do mean may be because i'm not sure, in some messed up place people are forced to fast or in other words penalized for not fasting, but that is not Sharia.
So i think sharia can be implemented or partially implemented in a secular country as long as it does not contradict or break civil rights. And the only reason i'm in support of that, is because a lot of muslims do want this, i don't, because in my opinion sharia law right now contains a lot of false stuff, however if muslims want to implement it on themselves, then it can be worked out excluding the parts that violates civil rights of women and so on if they exist, because i'm not aware of all the rules of sharia that are out there.
Tiapan
Grumpy Old Man
I am still waiting to hear what exactly of sharia law could be introduced that would benefit a western society, that does not already exist in common law, hence my thought of it's irrelevance.
Cutting off daughters hands for stealing - according to eselam? (see above)
I don't know if we want adopt that practice anymore than headhunting or cannibalism.
Remember stoning did not exist on the Iranian statutes until Sharia law was introduced in 1983, today the Iranian government lies about the subject but it still goes on. Are we willing to expose ourselves to this risk?
Cheers
Cutting off daughters hands for stealing - according to eselam? (see above)
I don't know if we want adopt that practice anymore than headhunting or cannibalism.
Remember stoning did not exist on the Iranian statutes until Sharia law was introduced in 1983, today the Iranian government lies about the subject but it still goes on. Are we willing to expose ourselves to this risk?
Cheers
Last edited:
The sharia law wouldn't and shouldn't be applied to non-muslims, especially when implemented in a non-Islamic state. So it will be only implemented on muslims.
As for the controversial stuff in it, they don't have to be implemented. Merely the basics would be a good start. Specially when a lot of this stuff is not agreed upon by all muslims.
By the way the part about cutting hands, this is not exclusive to women, so i don't know why you said cutting of hands of daughters. Did you get it like that because the story is about a woman?
Last edited:
Eselam, of course every human doesn't want to be wronged, and of course every human experiences being wronged numerous times in their life no matter where they are or where they come from. That's life, unfortunately.
Personally I do not think that organisations in this country are too bad. Not when you compare to most of the world. Even in terms of visiting the doctor, most of us have medicare. A trip to the doctor for me costs $15 and students under 18 years don't have to pay anything plus there are concessions for the elderly and disadvantaged etc. I worked as a receptionist for a chiropractic centre last year. Their policy was that if you could not come in you had to call 24 hours before hand to cancel the appointment to avoid having to pay the fee. But the first time a person forgot, they were just given the warning. Most people just called in advance. And if people were running late, they were usually given a lot of leeway (ie/ if it was too late, they were told to come in at the end of the day). I actually think this makes sense. If this policy were not in place, a lot of people would be lazy about keeping appointments. The business would lose money. You will find that organisations have their own pressure to perform well because there are competing businesses. If they are late, charge you unfairly, you are likely to go elsewhere and they lose money.
I have to say, at least for this example, the injustice is not so great that people care enough to change things.
I agree that putting up cigarette prices is quite mean. But I am not particularly sympathetic to smokers and what we've seen in this country is a huge decrease in the amount of people who smoke. There aren't even many places a person can legally smoke. If smoking was cheap and easy and fun, a lot more people would be smoking and the companies would be making even more money.
My argument though, is that our capitalist system (as opposed to secular, because we are really arguing capitalism here) is not that bad. Most people can get by in this country very comfortably, we are very free to practice whatever weird religion we might have and to raise our opinions in public so long as we are not threatening anybody. And to top it off, if we as a people want change, our legal system allows for it. The people really do have the power, we're just usually too lazy
Last edited:
To what extent does Sharia need official recognition (in a secular state, that is)?
Well, sharia is a law in itself, so it is supposed to be fully applied. However, seeing that in this case it is in a secular country, which is applying it just for muslims in a certain light, then it should be a matter of discussion. I don't think there is a definite point to which i could say this must happen. (i hope i got your question right, i'm not sure).
I'm not very certain myself, but I found myself wondering if Sharia (in a secular state) couldn't be simply adopted by common accord among the Muslims that live there, without necessarily being recognized by the local government.