Should secular societies allow Sharia Law?

[Badran]

Ahhh, ok. Thanks for the clarification .

No problem

 

[Panda]

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.

Um what? Sorry I am having trouble making sense of what you are saying. You think if a Muslim kills someone they should be treated differently than if a secular person kills someone?

And Allah knows best

I disagree.

 

[fatima_bintu_islam]

What is the problem in that?

In Islam it is the soul for the soul, and is secularism it is jail for life ( or less) . Where is the problem?

I disagree.

Disagree or not, that doesnt change the facts.

 

[darkendless]

What is the problem in that?

In Islam it is the soul for the soul, and is secularism it is jail for life ( or less) . Where is the problem?

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

Disagree or not, that doesnt change the facts.

Facts? Lets have a factual discussion here please.

 

[fatima_bintu_islam]

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

An eye for an eye keeps everyones eye safe. If I knew the court would hit me because I hitted my friend, I will be more careful about the intensity of my bunch

Facts? Lets have a factual discussion here please.

What is a fact for me could not be one for you. It doesnt change the fact that Allah knows better than myself, if you think you know better than Allah then I highly applaud your modesty.


But of course nothing of what we're talking about is related to the topic , so forget about it.

Best regards

 

[Caladan]

What is the problem in that?

In Islam it is the soul for the soul, and is secularism it is jail for life ( or less) . Where is the problem?

Are you saying that in non Islamic societies, Muslims should be allowed the capital punishment under Islamic courts?
It seems you misunderstand the issue. Sharia courts are going to be moderated into the larger social frame, they will not create a little Saudi Arabia or a little Iran inside a western democracy.

 

[Kerr]

An eye for an eye keeps everyones eye safe. If I knew the court would hit me because I hitted my friend, I will be more careful about the intensity of my bunch

An eye for an eye doesn´t keep people safe. There are far too many sociopaths out there that can manipulate people as they wish for it to be that simple.

What is a fact for me could not be one for you. It doesnt change the fact that Allah knows better than myself, if you think you know better than Allah then I highly applaud your modesty.


But of course nothing of what we're talking about is related to the topic , so forget about it.

Best regards

Someone who don´t think Allah exist cannot think he knows the best, you know.

 

[Panda]

What is the problem in that?

In Islam it is the soul for the soul, and is secularism it is jail for life ( or less) . Where is the problem?

The problem is you are treating to things that are the same different because of religion. What if in my religion it was ok to kill Muslims would it then be acceptable for me to kill Muslims?

Disagree or not, that doesnt change the facts.

I am glad you agree, so we can stop this nonsense of your Allah yes?

 

[ἄθεος]

No-vote here; Islam isn't secular therefore Sharia Law isn't either. Seems like a silly question with an obvious answer, quite frankly.

 

[darkendless]

An eye for an eye keeps everyones eye safe. If I knew the court would hit me because I hitted my friend, I will be more careful about the intensity of my bunch

To an extent i agree. However, i thinkour laws have moved past this sort of thing. I'd like to see murders, rapists and the violent crimals 6 feet under to be honest but as a society it is no longer possible. In the west it has been decided that in most cases death is not the answer.

What is a fact for me could not be one for you. It doesnt change the fact that Allah knows better than myself, if you think you know better than Allah then I highly applaud your modesty.


But of course nothing of what we're talking about is related to the topic , so forget about it.

Best regards

I'm just saying this is not a thread designed to throw out debatable claims. You see allah as a divine power, i do not, this is not the place for that discussion.

 

[Tiapan]

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.

I guess I am having trouble here. If we are picking and choosing various laws and disregarding others, which laws are we actually talking of? I suspect 90% would match existing secular common law. So what is the 10% that is so important that legislation must be executed to allow it on the statute books?

In Australia many moslems have integrated extremely well through out Australian society and are upstanding citizens. Over the past 10 years there has been a growing tendency toward a "Ghetto" syndrome with its attendant problems, where large communities of muslims are concentrated in suburbs like Coburg in Melbourne and Western Sydney. An inevitable result I guess of minorities seeking comfort in numbers. For me walking down these streets feels like I am in a foreign country in a place I always knew as Dinki Die Aussie, that has now disappeared, which I find sad. So I do see here, definate geographic examples of a minority in a larger different culture.

Cheers

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

So then how would it be a "law", exactly?

I personally don't have a problem with people using ADR provisions to have some sort of binding arbitration according to Sharia principles for civil disputes (just like anyone could have binding arbitration according to the principles they consider important), but an important element of this is that it's done with the consent of all parties. It's lacking the mandatory aspect that full-fledged law has.

Or do you mean that it would be mandatory for anyone who declares themselves to be Muslim? Because I think that sort of treatment goes completely against the fundamental principles of secularism.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Absolutely not. Mixing religion and politics risks disaster, as history has proven.

 

[Badran]

I guess I am having trouble here. If we are picking and choosing various laws and disregarding others, which laws are we actually talking of? I suspect 90% would match existing secular common law. So what is the 10% that is so important that legislation must be executed to allow it on the statute books?

In Australia many moslems have integrated extremely well through out Australian society and are upstanding citizens. Over the past 10 years there has been a growing tendency toward a "Ghetto" syndrome with its attendant problems, where large communities of muslims are concentrated in suburbs like Coburg in Melbourne and Western Sydney. An inevitable result I guess of minorities seeking comfort in numbers. For me walking down these streets feels like I am in a foreign country in a place I always knew as Dinki Die Aussie, that has now disappeared, which I find sad. So I do see here, definate geographic examples of a minority in a larger different culture.

Cheers

Well, to be honest i'm neither familiar with all sharia laws or have i ever lived or been to Australia, so i'm not sure which things will change or be better for muslims if this is done.

I'm not really sure which things is it that will be beneficial if the sharia is applied. May be there is a need for any kind of government recognition so that those who willingly go to the sharia court to solve their disputes, can have something according to Islam that is also recognized by the government. For the second part of your post, i get that you're concerned about a small minority being kind of isolated from the larger community?

If thats what you're concerned about, the differences are already there, and they can not be changed, or hard to dissolve and some of the differences can not be dissolved. I think this would be the case either way. I mean there are different culture and values that is hard to disappear, at least not easily, and i don't think applying sharia would make things worse.

 

[Badran]

So then how would it be a "law", exactly?

I personally don't have a problem with people using ADR provisions to have some sort of binding arbitration according to Sharia principles for civil disputes (just like anyone could have binding arbitration according to the principles they consider important), but an important element of this is that it's done with the consent of all parties. It's lacking the mandatory aspect that full-fledged law has.

Or do you mean that it would be mandatory for anyone who declares themselves to be Muslim? Because I think that sort of treatment goes completely against the fundamental principles of secularism.

No, i mean what you explained in the beginning. I'm calling it law just because i couldn't find another word to describe it, but i tried to make it clear that this doesn't have the power of the law, or in other words can not override the countries law. But more like something you explained.

So no, it would not be mandatory for muslims.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

You can't treat citizens equally if there is no equality in law.

 

[YmirGF]

No, i mean what you explained in the beginning. I'm calling it law just because i couldn't find another word to describe it, but i tried to make it clear that this doesn't have the power of the law, or in other words can not override the countries law. But more like something you explained.

So no, it would not be mandatory for muslims.

That begs the question though, Badran. Why would Muslims not feel secular law was perfectly suitable for their needs? Why should discriminatory laws be enacted to please a minority? I'm inclined to vote for making Sharia law (in any form) illegal in secular countries. In other words, the citizens of given countries MUST accept the laws of the land and simply make do and there should be no special considerations granted to one group in areas that are already covered by adequate law codes.

 

[fatima_bintu_islam]

I dont think Badran was saying that he wanted it in secular countries, I guess all he meant was that it could be possible.

I wouldnt like to see it neither, I want shariah Law in my own country first, then the Muslims can come and live with me in it if they want a Shariah law. I dont wish for Muslims to be told: " Be grateful again and again, we brought you from your poor countries ( While in fact they needed them for wars) , we fed you and your kids, and NOW you have your own Law System.

Definitely not, Izzah ( Pride) is part of our belief system. What I was discussing in the thread is how shariah works not if it has to be implemented in secular studies

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That begs the question though, Badran. Why would Muslims not feel secular law was perfectly suitable for their needs?

I'm not sure that this is a fair question. I don't think I know anyone, Muslim or not, who think that a full trial is the best way to solve every legal dispute.

Edit: and you've also set up a false dichotomy: in many cases, it's secular law itself that allows Sharia-style arbitration (as part of a range of allowed types of arbitration).

 

[kai]

I'm not sure that this is a fair question. I don't think I know anyone, Muslim or not, who think that a full trial is the best way to solve every legal dispute.

Edit: and you've also set up a false dichotomy: in many cases, it's secular law itself that allows Sharia-style arbitration (as part of a range of allowed types of arbitration).

"Sharia-style arbitration" is not Sharia though is it.