I understand, thats why i believe it is only an optional thing, if the majority agrees i'd be glad, if they don't, they don't, athough i'm not convinced by the reasons for rejecting, but it must go that way.
-
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
I understand, thats why i believe it is only an optional thing, if the majority agrees i'd be glad, if they don't, they don't, athough i'm not convinced by the reasons for rejecting, but it must go that way.
kai
ragamuffin
It cannot be implemented it must always be by agreement. it would be fine for arbitration but not criminal law. can it be whittled down to be secondary to common law? and where is an example that we can use when coming to a decision on this , what the heck do we base this decion on?
I did not vote because the options given were not fitting my thinking. I will give you India as an example- a country which has a Muslim law- this is a civil law as per the Koran and hence I think can be called a kind of Sharia law. It gives the Muslims right to marry upto 4 women and does not give the alimony to muslim women on divorce, for example. All muslim organizations like this law and put all their vote bank muscles to defend this law. But, NONE are asking for implementation of the criminal part of the Sharia law where their hands are cut and they are beheaded. Here, they like the Indian Law.
Regards,
Regards,
If it is only implemented on Muslims, wouldn´t it be very easy to go around?
gnostic
The Lost One
As a guideline for only the followers to follow, then that's fine. I have no problem with them following the Shariah law as long as it doesn't conflict with the state law of the land.
But as an enacted state law, then I would have to say a definite no.
The reason for secularism to exist in the 1st place, is to separate state (which include government and law) and religion. There's no place for theocracy in secular societies. Every individuals are free to follow their religions, without prejudice, but they shouldn't be given political powers.
Should they break secular law of the country, regardless what the Sharia law say, then they should be judge under the secular of that land.
If they don't like the secular law, then it would be far better for to migrate to a country where the Shariah law is also state law.
But as an enacted state law, then I would have to say a definite no.
The reason for secularism to exist in the 1st place, is to separate state (which include government and law) and religion. There's no place for theocracy in secular societies. Every individuals are free to follow their religions, without prejudice, but they shouldn't be given political powers.
Should they break secular law of the country, regardless what the Sharia law say, then they should be judge under the secular of that land.
If they don't like the secular law, then it would be far better for to migrate to a country where the Shariah law is also state law.
Tiapan
Grumpy Old Man
The immediate contradiction that occurs here is the following. An Australian girl 18 years old, born to a Muslim family is highly likely to be a Muslim herself. Since she goes to a secular school she may fall in love with a non muslim or even more possible an atheist. Under Australian Law that is absolutely fine and any attempt to inhibit it would be regarded as illegal. I suspect, and am willing to be told otherwise, that an Islamic court would rule against the daughter and for the family. I think it would be a mine field of discriminatory differences and therefore unworkable. We are not arguing the degree of religious veracity, simply the difference in cultural law.
I believe if you move to a new country to take advantage of a better standard of living it is a commitment to adjust to its customs and respect its laws, being prepared to modify ones own views toward a consensus of the democratic process that made that place a decent place to live and bring up your children.
Cheers
Last edited:
Nerthus
Wanderlust
This was in the news over here a few months back. Even though it would only affect Muslims I still wouldn't want it in this country.
I wouldn't move to a Muslim country and expect to be under UK law, so I think it is the same thing. I know that's a controversial issue, but we are a Christian country and I don't believe we should now have to change thousands of years of tradition, for the minority who want it different. Because, I am sure we couldn't change things over in a predominantly Muslim country.
I wouldn't move to a Muslim country and expect to be under UK law, so I think it is the same thing. I know that's a controversial issue, but we are a Christian country and I don't believe we should now have to change thousands of years of tradition, for the minority who want it different. Because, I am sure we couldn't change things over in a predominantly Muslim country.
I agree. I didn't mean it would override the criminal law of the country it is applied in, merely that it provides courts or institution for family disputes, inheritance and divorce issues and so on.
Do you mean for non-muslims? Well, it is not supposed to touch non-muslims in the first place, sharia law is not even applicable on non-muslims in an Islamic state, only the crimes.
That sounds about fair.
I see what you're saying. There a simple misunderstanding here though. Regarding a woman not allowed to marry a non-muslim, the sharia court can not and should not be able to stop her, her family doesn't have a say. It is only a point of that the islamic court will not recognize her marriage, she can get married the usual way in that case and not care about the sharia court. Now, if we assume that i'm wrong here, and there is actually a "rule" in sharia that entitles the family or the court to stop the woman, then this would be one of the rules that shouldn't be applied. Like i said, i don't think it is possible to apply everything. Merely the basics, and it shouldn't force muslims to do anything.
In other words, its not going to be a small community inside a secular country ruling itself. I know this is complicated to apply, but i think it can work out, at least with the basics like i said.
No, I meant if the law exist but you can go around it by adjusting your own faith it doesn´t appear to be a law that can be enforced properly. Unless I misunderstood what you mean, of course.
Personally, I think if someone wants to live according to the laws of their faith and those laws wouldn´t break, in lack of better words, the secular laws then they are free to do so. But I wouldn´t suggest to enforce them by the society and so. Hope I have explained in a way that make sense.
fatima_bintu_islam
Active Member
Ymir , what is your own position?
A thought occured... maybe we use the term "law" differently. Could you explain what you mean by it in my detail (or point me to a post where someones does... havent read the entire thread, so I may have missed something)?
Oh okay. Thats okay though, i mean i don't think the purpose is for it to replace the law of the country, so there would be a way around it of course, nothing wrong with that. I merely believe this should be done for those who want to follow it.
I suppose there must be some problems with living according to sharia law without any kind of recognition, thats why i think this should be applied, not to enforce this on anybody. After all they are living in a secular country, so that comes first.
ThereIsNoSpoon
Active Member
easy answer to the vote: "NO"
Yeah i guess this is what it comes down to. I don't know what to call it, but its not like the regular law where it is applied to everyone and there is no way around it.
It is only applied to those who want it applied to them in other words.
fatima_bintu_islam
Active Member
Hmm, thats a first basic difference with Shariah where religious sects have the right wether to be judged under their rules or under Shariah Law. At the time of the prophet peace be upon him they used to come to him because they knew he would do injustice to any part.
Someone mentioned that Shariah is not something static and that muslims are not sure about what it means , so whats the difference between that and secularism?
In Shariah we have static very well known rules that are the basis of the state, but regarding secondary issues then Shariah is flexible and depend on the situation, where religious scholars agree on a ruling.
If for example we are talking about the circulation code, then scholars wont have anything to do with it. However if you were to kill someone with your car, then the ruling is up to the religion where it says the soul for the soul (in general), along with some conditions related to the different situations.
And Allah knows best
Ahhh, ok. Thanks for the clarification
.