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

[Kuzcotopia]

1. Sharia law runs counter to the modern non-Muslim ideal of the division of church and state. Sharia law is derived from both the Qur'an and 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 laws 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 Death penalty for several "crimes" is no longer applicable in many counties as many have abolished the death penalty altogether.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.

Now that's how you make an argument!

 

[YmirGF]

Now that's how you make an argument!

I was able to vote after writing that bit. I have no desire to see any aspect of Sharia law enacted in non-Muslim countries mainly due to the inherent inequality in its civil law application.

 

[Acim]

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.

You keep saying the video says all Muslims are instructed to lie, which is why I asked you to find that in the video. It just says "Muslims" and then quickly jumps to "Islamic leaders" do this, and then provides example, and then says do your own research as this is not a unique case.

To me, it's really not all that different than if anyone were to look at Western nation, like let's go with the U.S. and it's leaders who tend to follow some form of Christianity which is fairly explicit in its message of "love" (as in, love your enemies, love your neighbor as yourself, love God Almighty) but then puts all that aside in favor of political stances (on the world stage) that seek might and condemnation, seemingly foremost. I believe if one ignores certain passages (ya know, like 'Two Greatest Commandments'), that they can justify certain, aggressive stances, from own religious doctrine. Deeming that most (or more) righteous (than Greatest Commandments). For sure 'more practical.'

So, you can have a whole bunch (like billions) of people in the world who are Christian and who will say it is a religion of Love, while having leaders who claim affiliation with Christianity (as Obama has, as Bush has, as Clinton has, as Reagan has) that keep posturing themselves, and their nation as war hawks, that truly seem to suggest (in words and action) that a good defense depends on a great offense. Invading other lands, arming foreign rebels, engaging in lots of double secret positions - all in the name of nation-state type outcomes but which could easily be understood as "this must be what modern day Christians believe, or for sure what their leaders believe."

 

[Acim]

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.

Could you provide example of this?
I'm mostly interested in something big. Like if secularists at one point were favoring laws that supported death penalty, but are now not.

Really want to say more (that I think refutes notion that secularism isn't hanging onto idea that are rather old), but rather not get into that until I (or we) observe this alteration in thinking that is brought up, as that relates to laws of the land. I honestly think secularism isn't vastly different in view of certain (major) laws than what ancient religions have come up with. On social issues, perhaps, but even that is a bit debatable. We can get into that debate later.

 

[columbus]

Personally, I take a dim view of much of anything with "forbidden" in the description.

I probably wouldn't have a problem with a Shariac court in a western country as long as everyone understood one thing. It's voluntary. A ruling that isn't supported by secular law need not be binding on anybody.
Then if people prefer a Muslim ruling and are all satisfied with it, they can go on with their business as they see fit.
If the ruling is seen as improper due to more modern and sophisticated ethics than 7th century ethics, the ruling is invalid.
Religious rules are fine as long as they stay personal beliefs.
Tom

 

[Limo]

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.

Yes sure and all Muslims should be killed or accept Christianity or chose a religion for them.
It's not a new idea. Christians are trying to do this since crusades

 

[Limo]

My goodness, Luis. You have come a long way with this. I applaud your standpoint. My own guess is that Islam will simply collapse given that it is a frail house of cards to begin with. My hope is that modernity itself will pry Muslims loose from the cold comfort of their outdated beliefs.

I assure you that your hope will never come to true.

Islam is not collapsing. It's the fastest growing religion not by birth but by convert

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes sure and all Muslims should be killed or accept Christianity or chose a religion for them.
It's not a new idea. Christians are trying to do this since crusades

Actually, from what I hear ex-Muslims tend to become atheists. And I have made it clear time and again that I abhor military interventions, let alone outright killing.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Yes sure and all Muslims should be killed or accept Christianity or chose a religion for them.
It's not a new idea. Christians are trying to do this since crusades

Why are you engaging in this selective reading and strawman creation? Luis has said multiple times that Islam can, and should, be defeated with reason and exposure to rational thinking, not with violence & genocide.

 

[YmirGF]

I assure you that your hope will never come to true.

Islam is not collapsing. It's the fastest growing religion not by birth but by convert

@Limo Well, if I'm right everyone wins. If you're right the thralldom that is Islam will continue much like a persistent infection.

 

[viole]

Personally, I take a dim view of much of anything with "forbidden" in the description.

I probably wouldn't have a problem with a Shariac court in a western country as long as everyone understood one thing. It's voluntary. A ruling that isn't supported by secular law need not be binding on anybody.
Then if people prefer a Muslim ruling and are all satisfied with it, they can go on with their business as they see fit.
If the ruling is seen as improper due to more modern and sophisticated ethics than 7th century ethics, the ruling is invalid.
Religious rules are fine as long as they stay personal beliefs.
Tom

I tend to agree. What is important is to make it clear that there is always a higher overruling secular instance to appeal to, if one wants.

After all, I believe that even in America there are (non Muslim) societies with their own set of rules. The Amish and some orthodox Jewish communities come to mind.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Aupmanyav]

India is in the process of bringing a uniform civil law for all religions.

 

[YmirGF]

I tend to agree. What is important is to make it clear that there is always a higher overruling secular instance to appeal to, if one wants.

After all, I believe that even in America there are (non Muslim) societies with their own set of rules. The Amish and some orthodox Jewish communities come to mind.

Ciao

- viole

I go one further. In labor law an employee cannot even be enticed via perks to give up their rights under the law. Likewise, you cannot allow for a system the is based on systemic inequality in inheritance, divorce or sexual matters. To do so is just plain nuts.

Do we just do a Mrs. Fawlty?

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

You keep saying the video says all Muslims are instructed to lie, which is why I asked you to find that in the video. It just says "Muslims" and then quickly jumps to "Islamic leaders" do this, and then provides example, and then says do your own research as this is not a unique case.

To me, it's really not all that different than if anyone were to look at Western nation, like let's go with the U.S. and it's leaders who tend to follow some form of Christianity which is fairly explicit in its message of "love" (as in, love your enemies, love your neighbor as yourself, love God Almighty) but then puts all that aside in favor of political stances (on the world stage) that seek might and condemnation, seemingly foremost. I believe if one ignores certain passages (ya know, like 'Two Greatest Commandments'), that they can justify certain, aggressive stances, from own religious doctrine. Deeming that most (or more) righteous (than Greatest Commandments). For sure 'more practical.'

So, you can have a whole bunch (like billions) of people in the world who are Christian and who will say it is a religion of Love, while having leaders who claim affiliation with Christianity (as Obama has, as Bush has, as Clinton has, as Reagan has) that keep posturing themselves, and their nation as war hawks, that truly seem to suggest (in words and action) that a good defense depends on a great offense. Invading other lands, arming foreign rebels, engaging in lots of double secret positions - all in the name of nation-state type outcomes but which could easily be understood as "this must be what modern day Christians believe, or for sure what their leaders believe."

I could have thought that Obama said that we were muslim. And then we got a lot of muslims.
???
I don't remember that prior.
And as a child no one expected the twin towers or what happened after.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Yes sure and all Muslims should be killed or accept Christianity or chose a religion for them.
It's not a new idea. Christians are trying to do this since crusades

right do you know who came and said that they would be exonerated of all sins if they went, of course it lets some off of serious crimes while others were have social and class warfare.

 

[Notanumber]

These are the points made in the first of the three things you (probably) don’t know about Islam.

Islam has not been hijacked.

All religions are not the same.

The difference between the Quran and every other religious book we are familiar with.

The Christian bible is a collection of writing from various authors written sometimes hundreds of years apart with parables, advice & dreams all collected together in one book. The same with the Jewish torah.

Even those of us in the west, who are neither Christians nor Jews are still familiar enough with these religions to know this much, and therefore we assume the same is true for the Quran, but the Quran is only one book, written by one man in his own lifetime.

It is meant to be taken literally and it is not full of symbolism or vague analogies.

It is mostly direct commands.

Of course, the Quran contains contradictory statements just like other religious books, but the Quran itself provides the reader with a way to know what to do with the contradictions.

It’s explained in the Quran that if you have two passages that contradict each other, the one written later supersedes the one written earlier.

Most westerners are unaware that the peaceful tolerant passages were written early in Mohammad’s prophetic career.

According to the Quran, those passages have been abrogated by later, more violent and less tolerant passages.

So when most westerners hear jihadists quoting violent passages from the Quran, and then peaceful Muslims quoting peaceful passages they interpret that the way they would if someone was quoting the bible or the torah.

They think to themselves, Oh, there must be many different and contradictory passages, like there are in other religious books, so Muslims can pick and choose what they like, and justify whatever actions they want to take.

But the Quran is nothing like that.

There is no picking and choosing.

It says very explicitly and in no uncertain terms that a Muslim must not alter or ignore any part of its very clear and direct message, or they will burn in a fiery torment forever.

Are we all agreed that all the above is correct and true?

If not, why not?

 

[Limo]

Very kind from you to let them alive
So you're only concerned about their conscience!!!!

There are some other ways less than killing. You might do like Spanish Inquisition

 

[Shad]

Forbidding Sharia is to make it illegal all together thus a punishment for practicing which has implications for religious freedom. Treating it as having no relevance in regards to the laws of the land doesn't carry negative implications. I support the latter and reject the former.

My view also applies to other religious systems of law.

 

[LuisDantas]

Very kind from you to let them alive
So you're only concerned about their conscience!!!!

There are some other ways less than killing. You might do like Spanish Inquisition

Are you talking to me? If so, did you read what I wrote in this thread?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Forbidding Sharia is to make it illegal all together thus a punishment for practicing which has implications for religious freedom. Treating it as having no relevance in regards to the laws of the land doesn't carry negative implications. I support the latter and reject the former.

My view also applies to other religious systems of law.

Are you against the law being able to discriminate against divorcees because the Catholic Church is against divorce? What about the law discriminating against LGBTs because Christians/Muslims/whoever say their holy books call for gays to be put to death? Preventing either of these from happening can be argued to be a breach of freedom of religion so why should Sharia law - which discriminates against women - be exempt from this and not be outlawed?