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

[Smart_Guy]

What other laws are there in comparison and which is really better to have?

 

[LuisDantas]

What other laws are there in comparison and which is really better to have?

Excellent question.

Personally, I take what I consider to be a Taoistic approach towards law: it is fair to use it, if you have estabilshed that all constructive choices are lost to you.

In my opinion, laws are as unavoidable as they are over-rated and misunderstood. By nature, they are an entirely human tool subject to all-too-human limitations and disadvantages. Reductionist written sentences that need human interpretation to have any use at all.

They are necessary and in fact unavoidable to some extent. Not because they serve Justice, which they do not, but because they are a pragmatical necessity so that conflicts can be kept manageable due to the clear statement of expected consequences of certain situations and of likely punishment if arbitration is provoked.

Far from deserving the surprising reputation for being promoters of justice, laws actually determine how justice is to be hurt in the interest of keeping a society flowing. Justice can often be achieved when the parties in disagreement take the bold, courageous step of reaching out for each other and manage to understand each other well enough for mutual satisfaction and eventual agreement on some manner of settlement. That is very much a good thing, and quite a necessary one in everyday situations.

However, as is unfortunately so self-evident, such agreements of mutual satisfaction are often difficult to achieve when the dispute is too big, too complex, or carries too much meaning and consequence for at least one of the involved parties. They are particularly difficult to achieve when the parties are big groups of people,since there is a very strong natural tendency for internal confusion and conflict of expectations to exist as the number of people in a group grows.

That may be why the Tao Te Ching says, among other things, that

The more restrictions and prohibitions there are,

The poorer the people will be.

The more sharp weapons people have in a country,

The bigger the disorder will be.

The more clever and cunning people are,

The stranger the events will be.

The more laws and commands there are,

The more thieves and robbers there will be.

Source: http://www.taoistic.com/taoteching-laotzu/taoteching-57.htm


And, perhaps most clarifying:

When the great Tao is abandoned,

Benevolence and righteousness arise.

When wisdom and knowledge appear,

Great pretense arises.

When family ties are disturbed,

Devoted children arise.

When people are unsettled,

Loyal ministers arise.

Source: http://www.taoistic.com/taoteching-laotzu/taoteching-18.htm


This last chapter is quite enlightening, because it points out that it takes losing harmony ("the great Tao") for the effort at telling the virtuous from the non-virtuous to become meaningful and appealling. People only go through the trouble of pointing out where virtue can be found once it becomes scarce and difficult to find.

As a matter of fact, much of the Tao Te Ching reminds us of similar conclusions.

The bottom line is that while pursuing justice is certainly noble and necessary, the only way in which laws can help achieving that goal is by underscoring that it has not been met, and therefore motivating people to make it possible with their own efforts and personal sacrifice.

Laws do not promote justice; instead, justice is pursued by people because it is so much better to have justice than to be under the rule of laws.

Laws are sprung when people decide that it is better to give up on justice so that a conflict can be put to rest, even if it is in an unfair way.

Laws usually sacrifice justice, and quite often then do not even succeed at truly resolving the conflicts they are meant to.

Laws are rules described in written form and lent meaning by human interpretation. They are entirely powerless to achieve justice, because it takes judging a situation to have any chance of creating justice for it. And laws are not sentient. They lack the ability to judge situations. Much of their point is in fact to give fair warning of how unfairly some situations are expected to be judged if judgement ends up being called for.


So, going back to your questions.

What other laws are there in comparison and which is really better to have?

Many and varied in many ways.

It is my understanding that even Sharia itself is hardly uniform - or at the very least, understandings of what Sharia is supposed to mean in practical terms certainly vary considerably.

That may be a blessing in disguise. The best law systems are highly adaptable and aim to be unimportant, even redundant.

A common classification mentions the two major categories of "Common Law" and "Civil Law".

In a nutshell, Common Law (very influential in the English-speaking world) operates under the idea that laws should be the expression of the tradition and principles of the community and written as the need arises from the decisions of the courts of law that interpret those community principles.

By contrast, Civil Law (influential pretty much everywhere else in the world, except for English-speaking countries and Islamic communities) aims to instead establish a written code of principles and then interpret it as the need comes when the courts of law decide on individual cases.

Both are unavoidably imperfect, sometimes tragically so, but my opinion is that if we have to choose between the two the best possible system would be Common Law, since it is more respectful of the living and thriving nature of a community. In any case, the letter of the law is always the more vulnerable aspect of any system, and the one that more rapidly loses its value and virtue. Without a living discernment to protect it, law is just ink on paper. For a legal system to remain useful, it needs to periodically be put down and raised anew in some way.

 

[LuisDantas]

You make it sound like the Muslim member states are good with the UDHR, they're not.

Please see what the geniuses at the OIC came up with that would make them far happier.
Cairo Declaration on Human Rights

The UN had a collective wtf moment over that novelty.

Quite right.

And that is both a testimonial of the sincerity of the OIC - who, it must be recognized, are refusing to pay lip service to the UDHR and instead making a clear statement of what they want to stand for instead - and a valuable opportunity for insight on what Muslims tend to agree on.

I encourage everyone, particularly those with a strong opinion about Islam either way, to take the time to read the 25 articles of the CDHR and to contrast it with the UDHR (which shall at least hint on what Islam is not quite so enthusiastic to support).

http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/cairodeclaration.html
http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/universal_islam.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Islamic_countries
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

At the very least, the CDHR spotlights a few core values of Islam, such as family, traditional roles, the importance of clear lines of authority, and reverence to God.

Personally, I find Article 10 most interesting.

Incidentally, the CDHR also gives a fair idea of what people mean when they say that ISIS is definitely not Islamic.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't think you quite understand what I am trying to say ?.

Either that, or I find what you say unrealistic and unworkable. By all means feel free to attempt to convince me otherwise.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Excellent question.

Personally, I take what I consider to be a Taoistic approach towards law: it is fair to use it, if you have estabilshed that all constructive choices are lost to you.

In my opinion, laws are as unavoidable as they are over-rated and misunderstood. By nature, they are an entirely human tool subject to all-too-human limitations and disadvantages. Reductionist written sentences that need human interpretation to have any use at all.

They are necessary and in fact unavoidable to some extent. Not because they serve Justice, which they do not, but because they are a pragmatical necessity so that conflicts can be kept manageable due to the clear statement of expected consequences of certain situations and of likely punishment if arbitration is provoked.

Far from deserving the surprising reputation for being promoters of justice, laws actually determine how justice is to be hurt in the interest of keeping a society flowing. Justice can often be achieved when the parties in disagreement take the bold, courageous step of reaching out for each other and manage to understand each other well enough for mutual satisfaction and eventual agreement on some manner of settlement. That is very much a good thing, and quite a necessary one in everyday situations.

However, as is unfortunately so self-evident, such agreements of mutual satisfaction are often difficult to achieve when the dispute is too big, too complex, or carries too much meaning and consequence for at least one of the involved parties. They are particularly difficult to achieve when the parties are big groups of people,since there is a very strong natural tendency for internal confusion and conflict of expectations to exist as the number of people in a group grows.

That may be why the Tao Te Ching says, among other things, that



Source: http://www.taoistic.com/taoteching-laotzu/taoteching-57.htm


And, perhaps most clarifying:



Source: http://www.taoistic.com/taoteching-laotzu/taoteching-18.htm


This last chapter is quite enlightening, because it points out that it takes losing harmony ("the great Tao") for the effort at telling the virtuous from the non-virtuous to become meaningful and appealling. People only go through the trouble of pointing out where virtue can be found once it becomes scarce and difficult to find.

As a matter of fact, much of the Tao Te Ching reminds us of similar conclusions.

The bottom line is that while pursuing justice is certainly noble and necessary, the only way in which laws can help achieving that goal is by underscoring that it has not been met, and therefore motivating people to make it possible with their own efforts and personal sacrifice.

Laws do not promote justice; instead, justice is pursued by people because it is so much better to have justice than to be under the rule of laws.

Laws are sprung when people decide that it is better to give up on justice so that a conflict can be put to rest, even if it is in an unfair way.

Laws usually sacrifice justice, and quite often then do not even succeed at truly resolving the conflicts they are meant to.

Laws are rules described in written form and lent meaning by human interpretation. They are entirely powerless to achieve justice, because it takes judging a situation to have any chance of creating justice for it. And laws are not sentient. They lack the ability to judge situations. Much of their point is in fact to give fair warning of how unfairly some situations are expected to be judged if judgement ends up being called for.


So, going back to your questions.


Many and varied in many ways.

It is my understanding that even Sharia itself is hardly uniform - or at the very least, understandings of what Sharia is supposed to mean in practical terms certainly vary considerably.

That may be a blessing in disguise. The best law systems are highly adaptable and aim to be unimportant, even redundant.

A common classification mentions the two major categories of "Common Law" and "Civil Law".

In a nutshell, Common Law (very influential in the English-speaking world) operates under the idea that laws should be the expression of the tradition and principles of the community and written as the need arises from the decisions of the courts of law that interpret those community principles.

By contrast, Civil Law (influential pretty much everywhere else in the world, except for English-speaking countries and Islamic communities) aims to instead establish a written code of principles and then interpret it as the need comes when the courts of law decide on individual cases.

Both are unavoidably imperfect, sometimes tragically so, but my opinion is that if we have to choose between the two the best possible system would be Common Law, since it is more respectful of the living and thriving nature of a community. In any case, the letter of the law is always the more vulnerable aspect of any system, and the one that more rapidly loses its value and virtue. Without a living discernment to protect it, law is just ink on paper. For a legal system to remain useful, it needs to periodically be put down and raised anew in some way.

I once confused secularism, religion and some other stuff. That's why I asked.

Accordingly, is Taoism a law a country uses as an official rule practically?

I was wondering what other laws are actually applied and taken as laws now in real life application, and couldn't think secularism and mention it out of fear of being questioned and criticized again

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Which bits?
So you want to ban 'Don't steal' or 'Don't murder' or 'Don't rob'?

Those are Sharia laws matey!

So maybe you need to define exactly which bits of Sharia you don't like?

We already have those laws in society without application of Sharia. Nice try.

 

[LuisDantas]

I once confused secularism, religion and some other stuff. That's why I asked.

You know, that is one of your most impressive qualities. You are so consistently honest in asking instead of presuming.

Accordingly, is Taoism a law a country uses as an official rule practically?

I sure hope not. Or at least, that it is not a big deal if it does.

I was wondering what other laws are actually applied and taken as laws now in real life application, and couldn't think secularism and mention it out of fear of being questioned and criticized again

Secularism is a principle, and IMO a very much necessary one, but it is not law and I don't think it can reasonably be made into law, either.

Instead, secularism as best expressed by law translates into a complete refusal to decide what should be called religious and what should not. There is no good reason why any legal system must make such a decision.

Whatever is acceptable under law should be so regardless of whether there are people who perceive it as having religious support or significance.

Which is not to say that secularism is opposed to religion. Not at all. It just refuses to rely on religious claims in any way.

Whether and how those religious claims are compatible with any given set of secular laws or principles is to be decided by every specific religious group on their own terms. By every specific adherent, even.

It should also be noted that while the idea of "breaking the law" carries a measure of social stigma in most societies, law has no inherent moral value, and breaking it may be and has fairly often been the morally right thing to do. Law is inherently an instrument of politics, and any alignment it may have with moral principles is best described as a lucky coincidence, and more than likely an unstable, accidental one. For laws are by nature fairly static, while healthy morality must be thriving, dynamic, ever growing and changing its parameters to the best of the ability of the community.

Challenging the law does not even hint of immorality, but rather of insatisfaction with some aspect of the standing political system. It carries consequences that are supposed to be political in nature and should not be mistaken for moral or social shortcomings, which are fairly unrelated to political and legal realities.

 

[Smart_Guy]

You know, that is one of your most impressive qualities. You are so consistently honest in asking instead of presuming.

Gosh, stop it you!

You're making me blush

I wish everyone stops presuming easily too

I sure hope not. Or at least, that it is not a big deal if it does.

Hmm...

Secularism is a principle, and IMO a very much necessary one, but it is not law and I don't think it can reasonably be made into law, either.

Instead, secularism as best expressed by law translates into a complete refusal to decide what should be called religious and what should not. There is no good reason why any legal system must make such a decision.

Whatever is acceptable under law should be so regardless of whether there are people who perceive it as having religious support or significance.

Which is not to say that secularism is opposed to religion. Not at all. It just refuses to rely on religious claims in any way.

Whether and how those religious claims are compatible with any given set of secular laws or principles is to be decided by every specific religious group on their own terms. By every specific adherent, even.

It should also be noted that while the idea of "breaking the law" carries a measure of social stigma in most societies, law has no inherent moral value, and breaking it may be and has fairly often been the morally right thing to do. Law is inherently an instrument of politics, and any alignment it may have with moral principles is best described as a lucky coincidence, and more than likely an unstable, accidental one. For laws are by nature fairly static, while healthy morality must be thriving, dynamic, ever growing and changing its parameters to the best of the ability of the community.

Challenging the law does not even hint of immorality, but rather of insatisfaction with some aspect of the standing political system. It carries consequences that are supposed to be political in nature and should not be mistaken for moral or social shortcomings, which are fairly unrelated to political and legal realities.

Yet I mentioned secularism again

Ah, what kind of rule is followed in Brazil?

 

[oldbadger]

We already have those laws in society without application of Sharia. Nice try.

Most of Sharia overlaps with Western legislation. So it would be necessary to write down which Sharia laws are to be banned.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Most of Sharia overlaps with Western legislation. So it would be necessary to write down which Sharia laws are to be banned.

Just apply the law of the land, and ignore Sharia.

 

[oldbadger]

Just apply the law of the land, and ignore Sharia.

.....in which case nearly all Sharia law is acceptable and reasonable.
About 600 of the 613 laws are no problem at all.

The real problem occurs when groups of thugs play self righteous vigilante in our streets.

I haven't read a media report of such crimes in months. Sharia laws can be very bad, but Personally I would not want some US laws here. Suppose we got the equivalent of the 2nd amendment here next week? Bbbrrrrr..... !

 

[oldbadger]

Whatever is acceptable under law should be so regardless of whether there are people who perceive it as having religious support or significance.

This^^^^^

Only a small % of Sharia law is considered by the majority of Westerners to be unreasonable.

I consider a % of UK law to be unreasonable!

It's only when people use the law as an excuse to commit crimes in our streets against innocent folks that it becomes a crime in itself.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

The suras of the Quran can be grouped into two distinct periods in Muhammad's life. There is the earlier "Meccan" period, when Muhammad had little to say about violence or "fighting in Allah's way." Not only did he not have the power to force Islam on others at the time, but he was borrowing heavily from Judeo-Christian religious tradition.

Then there are the "Medinan" suras and later, in which the commands to violent Jihad and intolerance increase corresponding to Muhammad's military strength. The bloody 9th Sura (the Verse of the Sword) is one of the very last to be handed down by the prophet of Islam, and it came at a time when the Muslims had already achieved power over their neighbors, forcing into exile those who would not convert.

Most of the Quran is about unbelievers and much of this is devoted to their earthly or divine punishment. People of other religions are said to be "cursed by Allah." The more tolerant verses (though popular with contemporary apologists) are less numerous than the later, more violent ones. According to the Quran itself, the later verses abrogate those that precede them (Allah doesn't change his word, 6:115, but he does "substitute" it when he comes up with something better, 2:106 16:101).

It is important to note that the Quran does not contain a single original moral value. However, it is the only major religion to do away with the rule of general benevolence found in all others - including Christianity's "Golden Rule." Instead of advocating universal love and charity, the Quran distinguishes between believers and unbelievers, drawing a sharp distinction in the value of each group and laying the foundation for discrimination and dehumanization (see Is the Quran Hate Propaganda?).

Those who abandon themselves to what the Quran literally says generally become a danger to those around them who are not like-minded. Other Muslims often maintain a discreet loyalty to a predetermined moral framework around which they may choose to mold the Quran by filtering out inconvenient sections - usually on the basis of context - while placing disproportionate emphasis on limited fragments of earlier verses that appear to be in agreement.

The Quran repeatedly stresses Muhammad's personal claim to being a prophet. Those who accept it are morally superior to those who don't. Muslims will receive the highest reward in paradise while the non-believers will suffer egregious torment in hell - as well as a "painful punishment" in this life.

There is more information here https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/introduction.aspx

Great. Do you believe, as the video suggests, that Muslims specifically quote passages from the first period to deceive everyone from knowing that they only really believe the passages from the second period?

The video's arguments hang on that fact.

Edit: As an atheist, I have plenty of arguments against Islam, but I want those arguments to be intellectually sound. This video is not one of them, and any true skeptic who relies on such a video is irrational.

It hurts the atheist case, and makes us look unreasonable if we buy into it.

But you know what, I'm getting bored, so if you reply, I probably won't answer. Later.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yet I mentioned secularism again

Ah, what kind of rule is followed in Brazil?

Mentioning secularism is quite all right. But it is often misunderstood.

Brazil's constitution is a huge text that nominally states laicism (a close relative of secularism), but in all honesty misundestands and misapplies it. It even establishes specifically Catholic holidays.

I don't think most Brazilians, even sympathizes of laicism and secularism, quite understand it. Many confuse it for "equal time for all religions", which is well-meaning but far too problematic.

 

[LuisDantas]

Most of Sharia overlaps with Western legislation. So it would be necessary to write down which Sharia laws are to be banned.

Personally, I think it is best to simply ignore the source of the law and discuss its validity on its own merits, with no references to divine origins, parameters or goals.

Much of Sharia is doubtless reasonable and quite possibly better than existing laws. Laws, after all, are often of dubious merit and tend to lose what little they have rather quickly.

Sharia is most noticeable because it does make a point of claiming divine guidance. That may appear innocuous, but it really isn't. It is very important to nurture a sense that people are supposed to judge the laws as opposed to the other way around.

You mentioned the 2nd Ammendment and it is a good example of the dangers of glorifying law. It is a 18th century piece of text that is now being used to attempt to defend the supposed right of Americans to own assault weapons, doubtless because there is an unstated mistification of the wisdom of its originators. They could not possibly mean to legislate about weapons of such different scope from what existed back in the day, yet the custom of the USA happily ignores that anyway.

 

[LuisDantas]

Great. Do you believe, as the video suggests, that Muslims specifically quote passages from the first period to deceive everyone from knowing that they only really believe the passages from the second period?

Consciously? Probably not. Reliance on scriptures has a way to create self-deceipt.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Consciously? Probably not. Reliance on scriptures has a way to create self-deceipt.

Certainly. But that's not what the video is claiming.

Again, I'm all for good arguments against Islam as a set of religious beliefs, and I'm against the human rights violations that sharia law inevitably creates in countries that use it.

But the video is a destructive conspiracy argument that belittles reason and forces you to deny skeptical thinking, by making the assumption that deliberate lying is practiced by Islam as a doctrine. It's a bad assumption with nothing credible to back it up.

Yeah, I am all for arguments against sharia law. But they must be good arguments.

 

[icehorse]

IMO, the Bible and the Quran (and all other scripture), were written by men, not gods. The most gracious thing I can say is that they represent the best thinking on questions of morals and ethics at the time they were written.

But by today's standards, most of scripture's views on morals and ethics are barbaric. By their actions, most religious folks agree, and do all manner of cherrypicking to find those snippets of their scripture that are defendable by today's standards.

One of secularism's strong points is that its laws are amendable. As we get wiser, we can change our laws to represent our best thinking. Secularists are not tied to defending unalterable thinking from centuries ago.

 

[YmirGF]

Certainly. But that's not what the video is claiming.

Again, I'm all for good arguments against Islam as a set of religious beliefs, and I'm against the human rights violations that sharia law inevitably creates in countries that use it.

But the video is a destructive conspiracy argument that belittles reason and forces you to deny skeptical thinking, by making the assumption that deliberate lying is practiced by Islam as a doctrine. It's a bad assumption with nothing credible to back it up.

Yeah, I am all for arguments against sharia law. But they must be good arguments.

1. Sharia law runs counter to the modern non-Muslim ideal of the division of church and state. Sharia law is derived from the Qur'an, the life of Muhammad and Allah (god) as the sole source of inspiration. Sharia law is often touted as god's law.

2. The vast majority of Sharia law is already covered by existing non-Sharia based laws

3. Everyone is NOT equal in the eyes of Sharia Law. (A fundamental flaw with the system that was not apparent before modern times.)

4. Civil law or Common Law(s) are fluid and can be changed by elected officials. (Frankly, I'm not so sure Sharia Law can be dramatically changed, but even if it can be it would have to be mandated by religious authorities who instructed elected officials to make changes. Again, a smack in the face of the ideal of division of church and state.)

5. Barbaric penalties for theft of property. (Though true that not all counties sever a limb from the criminal, cutting off a limb is the prescribed method.)

6. Barbaric penalties for any form of sex outside of marriage. (Volumes could be written on this aspect alone.)

7. Systemic inequality in regards to inheritance (this alone should be enough to disqualify Sharia in civil actions even if all parties agree with the inherent inequality)

8. Systemic inequality in regards to divorce. (this alone should be enough to disqualify Sharia in civil actions even if both parties agree with the inherent inequality)

(In point 7 & 8... the idea is that the individual has rights and should never be compelled to waive those rights)

9. Death penalty for several "crimes" is no longer applicable in many counties as many have abolished the death penalty altogether.

10. Several laws apply to finance in regards to usury or the charging of high interest rates which are religiously motivated ideals that fly in the face of modern financial practices. The Sharia solution is to charge a fee for borrowing that amounts to much the same thing as interest on a given loan.



In regards to the "deliberate lying", as best as I can determine, this is originally a Shia invention designed to allow Shia to protect themselves from Sunni persecution. The idea, is I understand, is because the persecution was quite likely a Shia Muslim could lie to protect themselves from unnecessary harm and that Allah would forgive them for doing so. It is NOT a system wide Muslim belief. However, like with all human animals one should never assume that anyone is telling you the unvarnished truth. It is a foible of human nature in that we will often paint things in a way that makes us and our actions look good - often better than we deserve.



My problem with the video is that it glosses over too many points pretending that Islam is a single monolithic thing. It isn't quite that simple.

 

[YmirGF]

One of secularism's strong points is that its laws are amendable. As we get wiser, we can change our laws to represent our best thinking. Secularists are not tied to defending unalterable thinking from centuries ago.

Nor do we have to poll religious leaders to tell us how and what we can change.
We have, necessarily, knocked religious leaders down several pegs and they no longer hold us captive.