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

[The Emperor of Mankind]

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?

Yeah, for real. You're just making up an argument out of thin air and attacking it voraciously, Limo.

 

[Rival]

Yeah, for real. You're just making up an argument out of thin air and attacking it voraciously, Limo.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

LOL

 

[Shad]

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?

Think of inheritance laws within Sharia. A citizen that is a Muslim can reference a legal scholar of Sharia for advice regarding division of inheritance which can be implemented via the the legal system of a secular nation. If you forbid the whole system of laws, Sharia, as per the OP then no Muslim can use this as a reference. If such wills are found with specific Sharia divisions a claim can be made that such a will is based on discrimination thus invalid. In this way you are make it illegal for one to dictate a part of their own will and control of what happens to their property based on their religious views. Keep in mind following a religious code of laws is not a secondary practice of many religion but part of it.

You are equating anti-discrimination laws which are applicable to the general population regardless of religious views with as per the OP with a specific law for a specific religion itself. If you treat religious laws as irrelevant you deprive them of the spotlight to get their laws implemented. If you make these illegal you give them a spotlight thus a platform. We would also need to start addressing other religions. This becomes a massive waste of time and resources to go after every religion on the planet. Nevermind the current court battles created over and over in the American South trying to pass anti this or that law that are shot down in court over and over. This also provides a platform for every person that happens to create a set of religious laws. As per above for religious laws the line between practice a religion and follow it's laws are burred become the same. hus we are using the legal system to attack religions rather than acts of individuals.

Think of some of the rhetoric against same-sex marriage. "It's God's law" By even acknowledging such rhetoric is even to be considered is to give far to much influence to anyone that wishes to voice such a claim. You can do it, I can do it. Anyone can.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

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?

Islam has a bipolar girlfriend?

There are some things like that in the bible that I don't follow. If it's abusive it will attack like a nag that you cant get rid of.
So God points to something's that simple; deny the truth, like this is good and you know it. I don't ignore that.
What if enlightenment is within it too that you don't have to do something against your conscience mind or heart.
For example, in the milky stage the "nice" stage you my not expect anyone to take , or I would say act cruelly .
But even too that can be observed without verbatim scripture following.
But when you realize later that has happened you try your best to forgive and forget.
But depending on the gravity of the situation, it can feel like your just angry or messed up or bi polar.
But to come off that way is also way behind...
I still don't get the Aisha deal.. I see it's going from there as spiral down,,
I don't see the levite story as ideal or a couple others...

 

[Notanumber]

If the law of the land that I choose to live in is good enough for me it should be good enough for anyone else that chooses to live in that same country!

Why should laws have favourites?

Equal rights for everyone is what I say!

 

[LuisDantas]

If the law of the land that I choose to live in is good enough for me it should be good enough for anyone else that chooses to live in that same country!

Why should laws have favourites?

Equal rights for everyone is what I say!

Law is not sacrosanct. There is very much a right, even a duty to change it as time passes.

However, attempts at making the law of any land theocentric are by definition oppressive and bound to lead to abuse.

Therefore, the best and nearly the only way of dealing respectfully with attempts at establishing theocratic laws - be them Christian or Islamic - is by refusing them in no uncertain terms.

The hope that theocracy may be attained "once enough people support it" must be nipped in the bud by exposing the actual consequences of all past efforts in that direction and the actual meaning and reach of secularism.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

I thought this paragraph was interesting........someone wrote it.......
Another distinction between Islam and Christianity is this.. Islam instructs FOLLOWERS of Allah to seek out, and administer themselves any punishment to non-believers, or those who commit crimes against Allah. Christianity, on the other hand is the opposite. It instructs followers, firstly, not to judge, God will do the judging. It also instructs not to hate. "Hate the sin, not the sinner". And most importantly, it establishes that God alone will dish out any punishment, by damning anyone not in compliance to HeII. Big difference here, and explains why Christianity isn't as extreme as Islam. The worst that a Christian might do is express that he doesn't approve of your lifestyle because it is sinful, and warn that you may go to HeII. Well, if you are not Christian, this really shouldn't bother you, because you know it not to be true. The LGTQB community believe Christians are hateful because they don't celebrate their lifestyles. They want more than just to be accepted, they want their relationships celebrated by Christians, as Christians celebrate their own, and really exposes the bigotry, and hatred, of the LGBTQ community. In the meantime, mortal followers of Islam will continue to administer Allah's punishments, and those on the receiving end will continue to blame Christians only because of their beliefs. In other words, Muslims will CLAIM they are peaceful and loving, while at the same time administering any punishments while Christians merely claim God will punish. Again, not really threatening if you don't believe in God in the first place.

 

[psychoslice]

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

Probably, a dream is a dream, but when we all dream together it becomes reality.

 

[icehorse]

Think of inheritance laws within Sharia

Think of inheritance when both a son AND a daughter are involved. Under Sharia, isn't it likely that the daughter is going to get a smaller share of the inheritance than the son?

 

[Limo]

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

Yes I'm talking to you fore sure.
Didn't you say " Islam must end, no ifs, ands or buts about it, so yes, containing Sharia would be a good start"
The subject is about Sharia laws in non Muslim countries but you're targeting not only Islam but Muslims as well
Are you God s shadow on earth to decide to End belief of 1.7 billions Muslims on earth?
Who are you to decide that Islam must end?

You don't need a gun or nice to kill.
All you need is just a keyboard to set a big fire that might burn millions of people

 

[lewisnotmiller]

If the law of the land that I choose to live in is good enough for me it should be good enough for anyone else that chooses to live in that same country!

Why should laws have favourites?

Equal rights for everyone is what I say!

I don't want specific protections against Sharia Law, or any other sort of religious law.
What I want is a constitution that protects the rights and ensures fair treatment of people.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes I'm talking to you fore sure.

I had to guess. It wasn't very obvious.

Didn't you say " Islam must end, no ifs, ands or buts about it, so yes, containing Sharia would be a good start"

I sure did!

The subject is about Sharia laws in non Muslim countries but you're targeting not only Islam but Muslims as well

Islam is composed of Muslims, far as I can see.

I'm just not sure what you are disapproving of.

Are you God s shadow on earth to decide to End belief of 1.7 billions Muslims on earth?

According to many I am part of God's project on Earth. Not sure if that qualifies as the shadow you speak of.

I am not sure why some particular qualification would have to be met before I had an opinion, either.

Or maybe you are not ready to accept that someone might sincerely think of Islam as a mistake to be rid of?

Or maybe you are mistaking what I say for some sort of calling for violence?

Again, I am just not sure what you disapprove of.

Who are you to decide that Islam must end?

As it turns out, I happen to be exactly who I would have to be: a person who exists on a world that has Islam in it.

By luck of the draw, I happen to also be in the exact position that allows me to have a definite opinion on Islam. After all, the Qur'an essentially proclaims that either it is truthful or we atheists are liars. I know which.

You don't need a gun or nice to kill.
All you need is just a keyboard to set a big fire that might burn millions of people

Even with the understanding that "nice" is probably a typo, I am at a loss to understand what you mean here.

 

[icehorse]

Anyone can - with some effort - change their mind.

I believe that that's all Luis is talking about.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

(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.)

I would say it's in a constant state of change because it's never really been firmly or universally established or defined. It's really no different that Christians who are moved to violence and Christians who are moved to take care of the poor.
One thing that I read on BBC a couple weeks ago that I found interesting was that in Jordan they have allowed a branch of the Brotherhood of Islam in, and they found them to be much more cooperative and more willing to work within the system if they were included in it. That pretty much mirrors what happened between England and the IRA. There are many problems that have created the violence we see, but a major problem is that we are so busy blaming religion and dehumanizing them that we forget we are dealing with human beings. There violence isn't justified, but what's the difference, to them, between them bombing our homes and the Western governments bombing their homes? All it's done is give us ISIS, which is unfortunately a problem that may not be fixed by stopping the bombs.
But, regardless of the religion, it isn't surprising there is retaliation from them.

 

[icehorse]

I would say it's in a constant state of change because it's never really been firmly or universally established or defined.

Unpredictability in a legal system is never a good idea. Just think, coercion could come into play!

 

[YmirGF]

I would say it's in a constant state of change because it's never really been firmly or universally established or defined. It's really no different that Christians who are moved to violence and Christians who are moved to take care of the poor.
One thing that I read on BBC a couple weeks ago that I found interesting was that in Jordan they have allowed a branch of the Brotherhood of Islam in, and they found them to be much more cooperative and more willing to work within the system if they were included in it. That pretty much mirrors what happened between England and the IRA. There are many problems that have created the violence we see, but a major problem is that we are so busy blaming religion and dehumanizing them that we forget we are dealing with human beings. There violence isn't justified, but what's the difference, to them, between them bombing our homes and the Western governments bombing their homes? All it's done is give us ISIS, which is unfortunately a problem that may not be fixed by stopping the bombs.
But, regardless of the religion, it isn't surprising there is retaliation from them.

Can I assume you are meaning the Muslim Brotherhood? If so, it shouldn't be much of a surprise that they would make happy squeaks to being including in the political process given that they have once again been outlawed in the birthplace of the movement, Egypt. Any official attention would be a god send, as it were. Foolish Jordanians...

 

[LuisDantas]

Since mentions of ancient times (the Crusades), genocide dangers and shady political motivations have been made, shall we talk a bit about the political effects of Islam and genocide?

Islam is about 1400 years old (or far older, according to its own doctrine). It has been wildly succesfull in the demographic sense, to the point that even today one in every four people in the world is at least nominally Muslim.

A large number of countries explicitly claim Islamic inspiration for its policies. Even so, it is quite the challenge to have people agree on whether any given country can be called Islamic. Apparently Saudi Arabia is not accepted by many as an example of an Islamic country. Neither are Turkey or Iran. Not sure about Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, Syria and others.

A Caliph is generally understood to be in some sense the current day successor of the Prophet Muhammad as leader of the whole Islamic World. Both ISIS/Daesh and the Ahmadiyya Muslims presently make claims at being a current day Caliphate. Most Muslims reject both, which is not to imply that there is not much longing for a Caliphate.

That is nothing new. There were several parallel Caliphates in the past as well. The first Caliph dates back to 632 and until 1924 there has hardly been any time without a Caliphate except perhaps for 1258-1261. Shia and Sunni views on the matter seem to diverge somewhat.

The latest widely accepted Caliphate was the Ottoman Caliphate (1517-1924). It lasted over four centuries and for much of that time had at least nominal rule over large territories in Africa, most notably what is currently Egypt and Sudan, with litoranean reachs spreading well into the West and South/East. It also controlled most of what is currently known as the Middle East.

It also had a long, painful decadence. Its last few years were remarkable for its somewhat puzzling involvement in World War I and for the rarely mentioned and rarely acknowledged genocide of the Armenian people out of political convenience.

So it is not like Islam has never been given a chance to show its wonderful results as the source of political wisdom. Quite on the contrary, it has been tried pretty much non-stop for centuries and the results have consistently been abysmal. Blaming that on "Islam's enemies", most often nicknamed "the Crusaders" these days, is a common but very unconvincing claim. It is the creating of a phantom escapegoat to take the blame for the failure of what is supposed to be a God-protected wonder. The actual results fell under their own weight and caused a lot of bloodshed and overall decadence. Time and again, consistently, for centuries. These days the Islamic World does not even have any vestige of the dearly remembered accademic prowess that it was once famous for.

Why should anyone feel compelled to give Islamic policies, including Sharia, the benefit of the doubt yet once again? Particularly once it is acknowledged that there is explicitly no intention of reciprocity there? Islamic groups rarely even pretend to make claims of being willing to rotate the political power they seek with secular or even Christian movements, for instance. Because that would be betraying God's Will, presumably.

While the presentation is confused, misleading for various reasons and often sincere and well-meaning, the end result is still a situation where we are invited to please consider surrendering much of our personal freedoms and our destinies to God's Plan as revealed by the Qur'an. If most of us disagree, that is ok; they will just insist that the majority should decide the policies and take some confort in their impressive birth rates, with a barely disguised expectation that we will eventually submit in some way or another.

Islam is a sobering warning for the dangers of taking theistic beliefs too seriously. What it is not is a succesful recipe for a healthy society, if the actual history is any indication.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Can I assume you are meaning the Muslim Brotherhood?

Yes.

Foolish Jordanians...

Was England foolish for doing the same thing with the IRA? Afterall, the IRA chilled out and a "cease fire" was reached.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Unpredictability in a legal system is never a good idea. Just think, coercion could come into play!

Predictability isn't necessarily a good thing.