Should secular societies allow Sharia Law?

[YmirGF]

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

Ding!

 

[YmirGF]

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.

And this relates to my point how? Why is there any need, whatsoever, for "Sharia" flavored arbitration, when we already have perfectly reasonable arbitration methods available?

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).

Hence my question if it should be allowed. 9-10ths, I fully realize that secular law allows for other forms of arbitration, but since Islam is not compatible with Secular society, as per Not4me's wonderfully instructive thread, the question is, "Why would any secular society (in it's right mind) allow for the practice of Sharia (in any form) within its jurisdictions?" My guess is that it is currently offered in some countries due to politically correct ignorance.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And this relates to my point how? Why is there any need, whatsoever, for "Sharia" flavored arbitration, when we already have perfectly reasonable arbitration methods available?

Distinction without difference. Generally, the "perfectly reasonable arbitration methods available" are the ones that allow a wide latitude in terms of arbitration style, and as such include Sharia-based arbitration.

Hence my question if it should be allowed. 9-10ths, I fully realize that secular law allows for other forms of arbitration, but since Islam is not compatible with Secular society, as per Not4me's wonderfully instructive thread, the question is, "Why would any secular society (in it's right mind) allow for the practice of Sharia (in any form) within its jurisdictions?" My guess is that it is currently offered in some countries due to politically correct ignorance.

Does not4me (or rather you speaking for not4me) get to speak for all of Islam? Some things that people call "Muslim" or "Sharia" are compatible with the laws of secular democracies; other things are not. In a secular democracy, I have no problem with allowing people to engage in things that are compatible with the laws of a secular democracy.

If an activity (e.g. the ability to engage in consensual, binding arbitration in the manner one sees fit) is allowed generally, it should be allowed regardless of one's religious affiliation. What you describe is not secularism. A secular government is blind to religion. When it starts setting up different rules for people of different religions (e.g. "non-Muslims can arbitrate however they want, but Muslims can't use Sharia at all"), then it ceases to be secular. In a secular society, you have one set of rules for everyone.

 

[kai]

i ask again what is this "Sharia" that we are voting for or against does anyone know? is it any set of rules or guidelines that a group of Muslims come along and request ? what if another group comes along and says "thats not Sharia this is" do we have sharia courts or commitees for Bangladeshis and another for Somalis? yet another for Pakistanis? because lets face it we cant have the real thing because that only comes with a Caliph.

 

[Badran]

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.

I can only guess like i said because i haven't heard the complaints of muslims living in secular nations. But one thing though, it is not a law, it is not equivalent to the country's law. I don't know the name for it, but mainly an institution which allows for muslims to solve some of their disputes in, disputes which we have answers for in Islam. That only applies to muslims, who willingly want it, so it doesn't override the government in anyway. And you're not obliged to accept any part for whatever reasons.

As for the reasons, like i said may be because somethings that are done in between muslims doesn't suffice due to the lack of any kind of government recognition. Or may be because some people would like that kind of courts or institutions that would solve their problems easier and quicker, and still be valid in the eyes of the government.

i ask again what is this "Sharia" that we are voting for or against does anyone know? is it any set of rules or guidelines that a group of Muslims come along and request ? what if another group comes along and says "thats not Sharia this is" do we have sharia courts or commitees for Bangladeshis and another for Somalis? yet another for Pakistanis? because lets face it we cant have the real thing because that only comes with a Caliph.

Not law Kai, not like binding laws, and not like laws that are established in an Islamic state. Merely something like i explained. As for what are those rules in specifics, that would be discussed freely when the idea is accepted. In other words, when the concept is agreed upon, then which rules to be accepted and which is not is to be discussed. And of course the country reserves the right to dismiss any rule that is not acceptable for which ever reason.

Also, sharia does not only come with a caliph. Sharia is fully applicable within an Islamic state, which doesn't have to be a caliphate at all.

 

[kai]

Not law Kai, not like binding laws, and not like laws that are established in an Islamic state. Merely something like i explained.
Then thats not Sharia is it
Also, sharia does not only come with a caliph. Sharia is fully applicable within an Islamic state, which doesn't have to be a caliphate at all.

But there isnt one to use as an example is there because whether its Saudi or Iran version of sharia its not true Sharia. Sharia is a reflection of God's will for humankind. Sharia must therefore be, in its purest sense, perfect and unchanging.

 

[Badran]

But there isnt one to use as an example is there because whether its Saudi or Iran version of sharia its not true Sharia. Sharia is a reflection of God's will for humankind. Sharia must therefore be, in its purest sense, perfect and unchanging.

If your point is, that an appliance of sharia law with everything in it, is unacceptable, then i agree.

However, it doesn't matter what we call it, what is proposed here is to apply the pretty simple basics in the light i explained.

If the proposal is to apply sharia fully, then i disagree with that because thats ridicules in more than one way. But i don't think thats the proposal.

 

[kai]

If your point is, that an appliance of sharia law with everything in it, is unacceptable, then i agree.

However, it doesn't matter what we call it, what is proposed here is to apply the pretty simple basics in the light i explained.

If the proposal is to apply sharia fully, then i disagree with that because thats ridicules in more than one way. But i don't think thats the proposal.

Then its not up to anyone and everyone to call their desired court or Comittee "Sharia" just to give it some credibility.

 

[Badran]

Then its not up to anyone and everyone to call their desired court or Comittee "Sharia" just to give it some credibility.

It will be rules derived from sharia, but that doesn't mean it is a full appliance, nor that it is a law.

To be honest though i'm not sure whats your point or concern here. Is it the vagueness of the proposal?

 

[kai]

It will be rules derived from sharia, but that doesn't mean it is a full appliance, nor that it is a law.

To be honest though i'm not sure whats your point or concern here. Is it the vagueness of the proposal?

Yes it is

 

[Zadok]

*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

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.

Free people should be able to decide the law by which they are governed. I have no problem with those that want to live under Sharia law. I do have a problem with those that do not want to live under Sharia law but are forced to anyway or those that will to mingle in a society governed by Sharia law but will not live that law.

Zadok

 

[YmirGF]

In a secular society, you have one set of rules for everyone.

And that, is precisely my point.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And that, is precisely my point.

But when it comes to ADR/arbitration, the rule we're talking about is basically "as long as everyone agrees, do what you want within a few basic limits". This allows for Sharia-based arbitration. To get rid of Muslims' ability to do this, you would have to either severely limit ADR, or you would have to have a special rule that prohibits Muslims from engaging in something that everyone else is allowed to do. One option would hamstring a useful and beneficial alternative to trials, and the other would be exactly the thing you claim to be against.

 

[Badran]

Yes it is

Well, is at least what have been explained in this thread understandable?

If so, lets assume this is the proposal. Since pretty much everyone have voiced their disapproval of anything more than that.

 

[YmirGF]

But when it comes to ADR/arbitration, the rule we're talking about is basically "as long as everyone agrees, do what you want within a few basic limits". This allows for Sharia-based arbitration. To get rid of Muslims' ability to do this, you would have to either severely limit ADR, or you would have to have a special rule that prohibits Muslims from engaging in something that everyone else is allowed to do. One option would hamstring a useful and beneficial alternative to trials, and the other would be exactly the thing you claim to be against.

I am not in favor of any religiously based arbitration, period.

 

[gnostic]

I am Chinese-Australian (racially Chinese, born in HK, but I am Australian citizen). I have lived in Australia as long as I can remember.

I don't go around demanding to live by Chinese law (I would be stupid if I do so). And the same goes for everyone of different nationality (culture and religion) who lived in Australia, they abide by Australian laws.

I think it is rubbish if Muslims think that they can live in Australia but demands Shariah Law. If I (and other non-Muslim citizens) don't get special treatment, then why should Muslim citizens get special treatment. If you can't live by Australian law, then leave; the Australian government doesn't prevent people from finding a country that have law that suit their religion.

Is Australian law a perfect legal system? No, because there are no such thing as perfect system, anywhere in this world. But it is the preferred system that I want to live then those countries that have enacted and implement the Shariah law.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not in favor of any religiously based arbitration, period.

How would you propose we get to that end result? Would you prohibit all arbitration, or would you create a situation where different types of arbitration are treated differently under the law depending on their religious basis (or lack thereof)?

IOW, would you throw the baby out with the bathwater, or would you implement the double standard you say you're against?

 

[DoctorAnswerMan]

*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

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.

Oh, God, I hope not. But worse things have happened.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

At the risk of completely derailing this thread, what is so different about Sharia Law than theocracy (by any religion)?

 

[xkatz]

At the risk of completely derailing this thread, what is so different about Sharia Law than theocracy (by any religion)?

I think Sharia law is literally, codified laws and rules prescribed by Islam. Theocracy is a form gov't. Sharia alone is probably not enough to form a sustainable gov't. At least that's how I understand it, but I could be wrong.