Should Sharia Law be forbidden in Non-Muslim (Western) countries?

[ENTP Logician]

Most of what you're saying is incorrect
Looks like you didn't get what I'm saying
I'll repeat
Islamic law which unfortunately not practiced is not tolerant with Muslims and only Muslims who decided to leave Islam
It's same Allah law that is in Torah.
Is it clear?


Discussion with respect without defying is allowed and it happens everyday
Our history is full of documentation of interfaith and non-Muslim debates since early days
If Islamic law is applied in all Islamic world it has nothing to do with people outside the land under authority of the law
Salman Rushdie was an Iranian propaganda

But some Muslims get angry from extreme defying our symbols and

Your grammar is way off and because of that I cannot understand what you are saying.

 

[Limo]

It's extremely ironic that what you just quote-mined from is part of a conversation between Thomas More and his family. And it's from a film. In this conversation More speaks in support of equality before the law because if the law is not applied equally to all, even the Devil himself, it becomes meaningless. Let's look at the whole conversation ("More" refers to Thomas):

Alice More: Arrest him!
More: Why, what has he done?
Margaret More: He's bad!
More: There is no law against that.
Will Roper: There is! God's law!
More: Then God can arrest him.
Alice: While you talk, he's gone!
More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast– man's laws, not God's– and if you cut them down—and you're just the man to do it—do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.





Really? Where exactly?




Other religious structures don't need minarets. Heck, mosques don't need minarets and they certainly don't need muezzin to issue the call to prayer. Is it too much to hope Muslims will set their own alarms instead of waking up half the city?




Which applies to people of all religions including Muslims ultra-Orthodox Jews, Orthodox Christians etc whose women might feel inclined to cover their heads. The only reason it feels like discrimination is because a) Muslim girls cover their heads more often than non-Muslim women and; b) you view it as persecution because Muslims aren't allowed to be exempt from the law of the land. A typical sense of entitlement.




Such acts are based off of ignorance and are examples of religious discrimination which is illegal.




Not in France they can't, and yes, our "modern standards" are for everyone. They're the laws that see people jailed for attaching bacon rashers to the gates of a mosque. Don't give us this **** about how our laws don't protect Muslims because they do. There's actually a moronic culture going about in the West which viciously silences anyone who criticises Islam. It's essentially an unwritten blasphemy law. Louis Smith is the latest victim with his entire career hanging in the balance because he mocked Islam at a wedding. Mohammed Shafiq, CEO of the Ramadan Foundation issued a rather imperious statement saying "Our faith is not to be mocked, our faith is to be celebrated and I think people will be offended.". Who the **** is he to tell us whether or not we can mock Islam? **** him.




Ha ha, no I wouldn't. I see how the Copts in Egypt are treated; how the Zoroastrians in Iran are treated, how Christians in Muslim-majority countries like Uganda & North Sudan are treated. Heck, I see how Muslims are treated under Sharia law and I still think it's reprehensible.




It's not a very good example because the Indian Hindus only maintained their religion through violent self-defense, armed insurrection etc because their Muslim rulers had a nasty habit of demolishing Hindu shrines & temples to build mosques.




And since then the trend has reversed; Jews have since fled the Muslim world en masse because Muslims as a group have become so virulently anti-Semitic.




The fact you can only point to murderous anti-Semitism in Europe in the first half of the 20th Century as being less preferable than living under Sharia law is not exactly a ringing endorsement.




Like I said, they don't do that any more. I wonder why that is...




You should take your own advice.

Strange... all anti Islamic acts in France and Switzerland are justified
Non Muslim majority living under Sharia for hundreds of years is justified that they were taking their rights by force
Jews run away from Europe and lived under Sharia for hundreds of years, no recognition it's not happening now.
Using a lot of words with **** means you're losing your temper

What kind of logic is this?
Actually your words doesn't have any kind of logic or fairness or balance


You might not write anything just a lot of words with ****

 

[Limo]

Nope. Some of the most vehement anti-Semites are Jews.


I'm presuming, you meant Jew instead of jewel. If so, then someone's beliefs doesn't change their parentage. A born Jew is always a Jew, although they can easily be anti-Judaism or anti-Jewish.



I don't know what this means.

Don't you know that orthodox Jews don't recognise any non orthodox Jew and the laws keep changing to balance between orthodox belief and others
So you are parental Jew but you're not recognised as a Jew by orthodox Jews

In Christianity the same every church doesn't recognise others as Christmas

In Islam the same if you are anti-Islam then you're not Muslim any more

 

[psychoslice]

Thats up to them.

Do you think they would want it, now be honest.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Strange... all anti Islamic acts in France and Switzerland are justified

Because we in Europe make our laws using reason we can justify them with reason. You can't because your laws are based on inherently irrational premises. See how this works?

Non Muslim majority living under Sharia for hundreds of years is justified that they were taking their rights by force

So in other words might makes right? Does that mean we in the West can do whatever we want to Muslims as long as we do it at the point of a gun and it'll be morally right? Is that seriously what you're suggesting?

Jews run away from Europe and lived under Sharia for hundreds of years, no recognition it's not happening now.

Is it happening now? You tell me.

Using a lot of words with **** means you're losing your temper

Oh no, I dared to display emotion. There must be something wrong with me

What kind of logic is this?
Actually your words doesn't have any kind of logic or fairness or balance

I must be doing something right because you don't agree with it. Just because it doesn't show partiality towards your particular religion does not mean it is inherently illogical. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - show me how & why I'm wrong.

You might not write anything just a lot of words with ****

I swore all of two times in that last post and this is what you choose to focus on? Grow up.

 

[Perditus]

Should Sharia Law be forbidden in Non-Muslim (Western) countries?

There is no room in the modern world for such archaic and barbaric attitudes.

 

[Limo]

Because we in Europe make our laws using reason we can justify them with reason. You can't because your laws are based on inherently irrational premises. See how this works?




So in other words might makes right? Does that mean we in the West can do whatever we want to Muslims as long as we do it at the point of a gun and it'll be morally right? Is that seriously what you're suggesting?




Is it happening now? You tell me.




Oh no, I dared to display emotion. There must be something wrong with me




I must be doing something right because you don't agree with it. Just because it doesn't show partiality towards your particular religion does not mean it is inherently illogical. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - show me how & why I'm wrong.




I swore all of two times in that last post and this is what you choose to focus on? Grow up.

If you think you're doing well because you I'm not happy....
Ok you win
Enjoy it
I don't want to break it

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I must be doing something right because you don't agree with it. Just because it doesn't show partiality towards your particular religion does not mean it is inherently illogical. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - show me how & why I'm wrong.

If you think you're doing well because you I'm not happy....
Ok you win
Enjoy it
I don't want to break it

Yeah, I didn't think so.

 

[Akivah]

Don't you know that orthodox Jews don't recognise any non orthodox Jew ...

False. I personally know a lot of Orthodox Jews and they've never told me that I'm not Jewish. How many Orthodox Jews do you personally know that have told you this?

So you are parental Jew but you're not recognised as a Jew by orthodox Jews

False. see above.

In Christianity the same every church doesn't recognise others as Christmas

In Islam the same if you are anti-Islam then you're not Muslim any more

Yeah, both of your religions tend to label other people of your own religions as not being true adherents. e.g. Sunni vs Shia, or Protestant vs Catholic. It's not anything to admire.

 

[viole]

Strange... all anti Islamic acts in France and Switzerland are justified

I am Swiss, but I am not sure what you are referring to. You mean the ban on minarets in Switzerland?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ENTP Logician]

Do you think they would want it, now be honest.

That is not part of the question.

Your goading is immature and to answer your new question I do not know for certain how many would and how many would not.

 

[psychoslice]

That is not part of the question.

Your goading is immature and to answer your new question I do not know for certain how many would and how many would not.

I think your the immature one here, you get upset when confronted.

 

[Limo]

False. I personally know a lot of Orthodox Jews and they've never told me that I'm not Jewish. How many Orthodox Jews do you personally know that have told you this?


False. see above.



Yeah, both of your religions tend to label other people of your own religions as not being true adherents. e.g. Sunni vs Shia, or Protestant vs Catholic. It's not anything to admire.

I'm sorry if this is a bad surprise
Not only non orthodox Jews are not considered Jews but non orthodox Rabbis as well
http://www.haaretz.com/st/c/prod/eng/2015/08/not-jewish-enough/

In any relegion there was always dividends where some people are on the true belief

 

[Limo]

I am Swiss, but I am not sure what you are referring to. You mean the ban on minarets in Switzerland?

Ciao

- viole

Yes I mean the ban of minarets
The discussion point was not exactly the banning of the minarates, I used an example for majority to decide something.
Some people here believe that even if majority in Islamic country decided to apply Sharia, the western people shouldn't let them do that
So voting and democracy are not for muslims
This is an example of paranoia, double standards

 

[Perditus]

Some people here believe that even if majority in Islamic country decided to apply Sharia, the western people shouldn't let them do that
So voting and democracy are not for muslims. This is an example of paranoia, double standards.

Bah. We tried to offer freedom to the ME, but I don't recall an instance where we felt we could prohibit Sharia if Muslims wanted it.

 

[JoStories]

I have come to believe that Islam must end, no ifs, ands or buts about it, so yes, containing Sharia would be a good start.

Well, I feel the same way about Christianity but I don't see that going anywhere soon. Radical Christians scare me just as much as those who are with ISIS or so on.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Sharia is basically the Islamic equivalent of Talmudic law and Catholic canon law. Those aren't banned, so there's no reason to single out the Islamic one.

 

[Perditus]

Sharia is basically the Islamic equivalent of Talmudic law and Catholic canon law. Those aren't banned, so there's no reason to single out the Islamic one.

Do the Jews and the Catholics cut off people's hands for stealing? Push gays off buildings? Stone or behead women for rape or adultery?

NO.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Do the Jews and the Catholics cut off people's hands for stealing? Push gays off buildings? Stone or behead women for rape or adultery?

NO.

Perhaps not at the moment, but many would like to. There's also Cristian Domionists who want to institute a theocracy and enact Biblical law.

Mind you, there's several different systems or schools of Sharia.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sharia is basically the Islamic equivalent of Talmudic law and Catholic canon law. Those aren't banned, so there's no reason to single out the Islamic one.

More like the other way around.

There is little to no lobby for Talmudic or Catholic exceptions to speak of. If there were, they too would have to be specifically denied.