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

[icehorse]

So what? I knew about that before I made my comment. Your comment implies you want to provide the state the right and power to dictate which religious views are "fair" and which should be invalid due to discrimination within. Islam isn't the only religion that can be attacked in this manner. Christianity can be attacked as well. Religions can be attack on other cases such as those that endorse the "homemaker" view as sexist.

Again I do not want the state to have such a level of power over religion in general.

Sorry that you made that inference, it's not correct.

I want our legal system to be based on shared values, not the conflicting values of the various religious tribes that are common today. In other words, because religion seem to be fundamentally divisive, I believe in the separation of church and state. And I battle against ANY religion that attempts to undermine that separation. In fact I just started a separate thread today questioning other religious folk's arguments for "religious freedoms".

With all that said, I have to say that I'm continually amused by the "well other institutions are bad too" argument.

 

[Limo]

Limo,

Let me try again to clear something up. The ONLY thing we're talking about is getting people to change their minds. When Luis talks about ending Islam, the ONLY thing he means is for Muslims to see Islam more clearly and understand that it is a bad set of ideas that they should walk away from. That's it! No violence. Just a changing of minds.

You've read Luis response for sure
He meant what I said

To be fair, there is a bit more to it.

Islam, or at least a very significant, active and determined segment of it, expects everyone to eventually convert to it and at least sometimes complains when majorities or significant minorities of Muslims are not given political power and religious privileges.

So-called "western thinking" expects people to have a voice and to promote changes, and that can't happen under Sharia Law and other Islamic expectations.

There is a fundamental, irreconciliable clash between the two sets of expectations. I want to underscore that clash and spread its awareness so that it can be deal with as soon and as painlessly as possible.

No one benefits from hoping in vain either for Islam to be an accomodating, non-supremacist religion or for representative republics to be willing to become full theocracies.

 

[Limo]

While that makes sense on paper, even "moderate" Muslim groups end up having too little room to maneuver in practice.

There are plenty of reasonable, well-meaning Muslims, of course. Literally hundreds of millions if not a full billion of them. But they end up having to fear for their lives to such an extent that there is an actual doctrine ("Taqiya") explaining how and when Muslims may lie about their beliefs in order to protect themselves (mainly from other Muslims).

Things get really difficult when so many people feel so strongly about claiming divine favor.

("Taqiya") is not Islamic doctorine at all. It's used by Shiia only
Vice versa, We'll the time should expose out belief to all people without shy
May be some Muslim wrongly feel shameful under pressure of western thoughts and values but this shouldn't be the attitude of real Muslim

I and real Muslims feel proud by Islamic values and teaching, by our history, by our people

 

[Notanumber]

I would not feel proud to follow a doctrine of violence.

This is why I could never be a Muslim.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sorry that you made that inference, it's not correct.

I want our legal system to be based on shared values, not the conflicting values of the various religious tribes that are common today. In other words, because religion seem to be fundamentally divisive, I believe in the separation of church and state. And I battle against ANY religion that attempts to undermine that separation. In fact I just started a separate thread today questioning other religious folk's arguments for "religious freedoms".

With all that said, I have to say that I'm continually amused by the "well other institutions are bad too" argument.

You and me both, brother.

The Qur'an and Sharia have had well over a millenium and continental-sized areas where literal hundreds of millions of sincere practicioners attempted to make it work.

Sharia is theocratic law, and its shortcomings and flaws are plenty clear enough for the proper way of dealing with it to be "that is not to be ever considered as community law."

I think anyone is well within his or her own rights to Just Say No and stop cold any expectations of eventually adopting it.

 

[LuisDantas]

You've read Luis response for sure
He meant what I said

No, I did not.

The post you quoted shows that.

I strongly suspect that you failed to understand what I meant.

Idiom may have been an obstacle, but I think that the main hurdle is simply that idea that someone might sincerely be better off without Islam is so difficult for you to accept.

I will never surrender to Islam. Neither will most people on Earth. And that is very much a good thing.

Yet I am well aware that such a statement can be very painful and even disturbing for quite a few Muslims. I sympathize... but really, complaining about that to me is blaming the victim.

It was the Qur'an, not me, that put us all into a situation where logically either it is wrong or atheists such as me are lying.

I know whether I am lying and therefore I have no justification whatsoever for doubt, remorse or even relutance. None besides the necessary cautions for dealing with the feelings of fellow human beings, that is.

But those are hardly enough justification for my omission when repressive policies are presented for consideration.

I can and must encourage others to realize that the proper response is to say in no unclear terms that such inflexible, outdated, unfair tribal-minded policies are totally unfit for serious consideration as laws for the current population levels and that I refuse to pretend otherwise.

It does not help that its entire attempt at justifying itself is claim of divine inspiration. That makes it a glorified bet - and one that has already been shown to fail, at that.

 

[LuisDantas]

("Taqiya") is not Islamic doctorine at all. It's used by Shiia only
Vice versa, We'll the time should expose out belief to all people without shy
May be some Muslim wrongly feel shameful under pressure of western thoughts and values but this shouldn't be the attitude of real Muslim

I and real Muslims feel proud by Islamic values and teaching, by our history, by our people

I have to wonder how many Muslims actually believe that those are real problems.

Particularly once they have known actual people from the "enemy"'s side. It is easy to hate and fear the unknown.

 

[Limo]

To be fair, there is a bit more to it.

So-called "western thinking" expects people to have a voice and to promote changes, and that can't happen under Sharia Law and other Islamic expectations.
.

Why "western thinking" should be applied on Muslims ?
Why you need to dominate the "western thinking" ?

We've our own culture, values, and religion.

What example do you've you're promoting to Islamic world ?

 

[Limo]

No, I did not.

The post you quoted shows that.

I strongly suspect that you failed to understand what I meant.

Idiom may have been an obstacle, but I think that the main hurdle is simply that idea that someone might sincerely be better off without Islam is so difficult for you to accept.

I will never surrender to Islam. Neither will most people on Earth. And that is very much a good thing.

Yet I am well aware that such a statement can be very painful and even disturbing for quite a few Muslims. I sympathize... but really, complaining about that to me is blaming the victim.

It was the Qur'an, not me, that put us all into a situation where logically either it is wrong or atheists such as me are lying.

I know whether I am lying and therefore I have no justification whatsoever for doubt, remorse or even relutance. None besides the necessary cautions for dealing with the feelings of fellow human beings, that is.

But those are hardly enough justification for my omission when repressive policies are presented for consideration.

I can and must encourage others to realize that the proper response is to say in no unclear terms that such inflexible, outdated, unfair tribal-minded policies are totally unfit for serious consideration as laws for the current population levels and that I refuse to pretend otherwise.

It does not help that its entire attempt at justifying itself is claim of divine inspiration. That makes it a glorified bet - and one that has already been shown to fail, at that.

This is the real problem.
This is the actual cause of all world's issues today.

Someone relaxed at his comfort zone and look to the map and say "you know what ? ,,,, There are a ;pt of people who believe in (.... all what you've said .... ) Islam. We should set them free"
Some idols politicians and military "you are right man ... let us go"

Our grand father didn't sit idle, we didn't, next generations will not.

It's non of your business. Just concentrate on your issues and let indians bury their wives when husband dies as Hindus were doing for thousands of years
Let Boudhism do what they used to do
Let Muslims do what they used to do.

If you put your hand in the nest if bees, what do you expect ?
Don't expect honey only

 

[Limo]

I have to wonder how many Muslims actually believe that those are real problems.

Particularly once they have known actual people from the "enemy"'s side. It is easy to hate and fear the unknown.

You also hate and fear the unknown.
You hate Islam but you don't know it.
You don't know the history.

When real Islam ruled, We invented the Algebra, Astronomy, the Zero, Moden Medicine basis like blood cycle, alchemistry ....
The Caliph was ruling many countries where non-Moslem were majority

The Sharia sets churches and Christians free. As per Sharia laws, Non-Muslim are totally free to manage their own things independently, drinking, eating pigs although it's not allowed for Muslim. The Muslim husband should take his non-Muslim wife to her religion house, by for her what is used in her religion

and many many things that you don't know about Sharia
If you know Sharia you would ask Muslims to practice it

 

[Limo]

I don't know what finiah means. I have certainly made an effort to learn about Islam, to my growing disappointment.

You have not been hesitating to attempt to convert us. As a matter of fact, you never did.

Luis,
Islam rules India for about 500 years. Did we convert all Indians ? Are Muslims majority there ?
Same in Middle and Eastern Europe like Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia,,,,

Yes, we aim to convert people but with logic, debate, discussions.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why "western thinking" should be applied on Muslims ?

That is for you to consider. Maybe it should not. Not entirely, anyway.

There is no "sacred" "western thinking". Our ideas are neither unified nor immutable, and there is no doubt that quite a bit must in fact change.

What should be made clear for certain and from the get-go is how little traction theocratic law can possibly have for people who, quite simply, learned better.

Leaving aside for a moment the significant matter of deciding what exactly Sharia would decree and allow, most accounts seem to agree that it has no room for acceptance of homosexuality; that it has rigid expectations on the social roles of people, particularly women; and that it does not really have any respect for freedom of belief.

Worse of all, it also claims that it is God-given and that therefore it is unproper to even question it, let alone to try to update it.

That is, quite simply, entirely unacceptable. We have learned far better already. Attempts to over-rule that realization by demographic and political pressure are inherently immoral and not to be tolerated. And we can and should tell so to any and all Muslims so from the get-go.

If you can accept that, then we have a promising future of better mutual understanding ahead of us all. If you can't, then I am sorry to say that you will have to deal with that somehow.

Why you need to dominate the "western thinking" ?

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean to ask here.

We've our own culture, values, and religion.

This too is unclear.

Culture, values and religion are all ultimately individual, completely personal and they can and must change as time passes and circunstances change.

There is a lot of mutual influence and learning from others, to be sure, but any collective claims are unavoidably somewhat arbitrary and gloss over a lot of variation and disagreement.

So I have to ask: who is this "we" you are talking of? How much significance do you see in whatever cultural contrast you mean to underscore at this moment? What consequences do you see in that contrast? How do you suggest to deal with it?

What example do you've you're promoting to Islamic world ?

It is my sincere hope that we all will eventually (hopefully soon) see no need nor convenience to speak of an Islamic World. That expression implies a significant distinction between those who have learned and taken to heart the ideal of Islam and those who did not. I don't think that is really workable, nor desirable.

 

[LuisDantas]

You also hate and fear the unknown.

Yes, I do. I am human.

That is why I often attempt to learn a bit about those things that I find worrisome.

That often helps. Sometimes, as with Islam, it helps by giving me a clear direction to pursue.

You hate Islam but you don't know it.
You don't know the history.

I have made a honest effort, to the point that it would be dishonest of me to claim ignorance now.

I also find myself consistently appalled and disappointed by the efforts of those who attempt to present Islam as honorable.

If there is a God, it is by now certain that he does not want me to support Islam.

When real Islam ruled, We invented the Algebra, Astronomy, the Zero, Moden Medicine basis like blood cycle, alchemistry ....

Not sure what you mean to say here.

There was certainly a time, long ago, when the Islamic World made impressive contributions to science. No argument there.

Where do you want to go from there?

Are you perhaps implying that the world would be far better if "real Islam" somehow "ruled again"?

Why exactly do the dozens of Muslim countries and about one and a half billion Muslims currently in existence do not count as "real Islam" then?

The Caliph was ruling many countries where non-Moslem were majority

That is a bit of an oversimplification, of course. But let's roll with it.

The Sharia sets churches and Christians free.

How so, and free from what?

Why specifically "churches and Christians"?

Does that freedom extends to, say, Druze, atheists, Buddhists or people who are simply not interested in having any specific religious label? If not, why?

How is Sharia any better for any given group or person than the alternatives?

As per Sharia laws, Non-Muslim are totally free to manage their own things independently, drinking, eating pigs although it's not allowed for Muslim.

That sure sounds nice, until we consider that this is insistence on a clear, permanent distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims.

The unavoidable result is a lot of sources of conflict, resentment and mistrust. To say nothing of the practical problems that it creates.

How independent can people be really when they happen to be living side-by-side? Or even when they are not?

The Muslim husband should take his non-Muslim wife to her religion house, by for her what is used in her religion

I take it you mean the house of worship, the temple of the wife's religion?

I am aware that Muslim men are allowed to marry Christian and Jewish women, for what it is worth.

and many many things that you don't know about Sharia

What of them? Feel free to mention anything that you think might be helpful in giving people a better understanding of Sharia.

If you know Sharia you would ask Muslims to practice it

Perhaps, although I find that unlikely.

 

[Limo]

That is for you to consider. Maybe it should not. Not entirely, anyway.

There is no "sacred" "western thinking". Our ideas are neither unified nor immutable, and there is no doubt that quite a bit must in fact change.

What should be made clear for certain and from the get-go is how little traction theocratic law can possibly have for people who, quite simply, learned better.

Leaving aside for a moment the significant matter of deciding what exactly Sharia would decree and allow, most accounts seem to agree that it has no room for acceptance of homosexuality; that it has rigid expectations on the social roles of people, particularly women; and that it does not really have any respect for freedom of belief.

Worse of all, it also claims that it is God-given and that therefore it is unproper to even question it, let alone to try to update it.

That is, quite simply, entirely unacceptable. We have learned far better already. Attempts to over-rule that realization by demographic and political pressure are inherently immoral and not to be tolerated. And we can and should tell so to any and all Muslims so from the get-go.

If you can accept that, then we have a promising future of better mutual understanding ahead of us all. If you can't, then I am sorry to say that you will have to deal with that somehow.


I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean to ask here.


This too is unclear.

Culture, values and religion are all ultimately individual, completely personal and they can and must change as time passes and circunstances change.

There is a lot of mutual influence and learning from others, to be sure, but any collective claims are unavoidably somewhat arbitrary and gloss over a lot of variation and disagreement.

So I have to ask: who is this "we" you are talking of? How much significance do you see in whatever cultural contrast you mean to underscore at this moment? What consequences do you see in that contrast? How do you suggest to deal with it?



It is my sincere hope that we all will eventually (hopefully soon) see no need nor convenience to speak of an Islamic World. That expression implies a significant distinction between those who have learned and taken to heart the ideal of Islam and those who did not. I don't think that is really workable, nor desirable.

I understand you don't have what did you call before "Western Thinking" it's "No thinking" as no absolute rules
You're blaming Islam for ban homosexuality which have been accepted recently in Western counties.
What about Incest ? Do you support it ?
How long it takes to be allowed ?

The difference is clear. in Islam, There are absolute ethics and values that are not subject to change even if the vote was 100% which will not happen in Islamic world.

I'll ask you a clear question.
What if Muslims apply the Sharia Law in their countries not in western countries and they didn't influence or did any explosions in west and relationship with western and whole world is perfect ?

 

[LuisDantas]

I understand you don't have what did you call before "Western Thinking" it's "No thinking" as no absolute rules

Absolute rules are a poison to any society.

You're blaming Islam for ban homosexuality which have been accepted recently in Western counties.

Yes.

I am plenty willing to be proven wrong.

It would be all-out marvelous to learn that I am somehow wrong and that Islam is willing and able to teach itself better than its current rejection of homosexuality. After all, we are talking about a lot of people indeed.

What about Incest ? Do you support it ?

Mostly not.

How long it takes to be allowed ?

I don't know what the laws will be in the future.

Law is a political instrument. That makes it devoid of moral significance, and also somewhat hard to predict.

Even at its best, laws can do no better than to reflect the current moral understanding of any given community.

But if you are asking about my personal support, I have come to conclude that incest can be allowed (but not encouraged) if the proper care to avoid dangerous recessive genes and unhealthy psychological situations is taken.

The difference is clear. in Islam, There are absolute ethics and values that are not subject to change even if the vote was 100% which will not happen in Islamic world.

How do you reconcile that claim with the fairly obvious failure of Islam to bring a better world?

I'll ask you a clear question.
What if Muslims apply the Sharia Law in their countries not in western countries and they didn't influence or did any explosions in west and relationship with western and whole world is perfect ?

That is not an entirely coherent scenario. Because a whole perfect world would mean that I have no reason to complain, of course, but also because the separations among countries are ultimately fictional; and because communities influence each other even if they do not want to.

In any case, as they say, "the proof is in the pudding". I would like to believe that I would think of each community according to what they actually do.

 

[Limo]

Absolute rules are a poison to any society.


Yes.

I am plenty willing to be proven wrong.

It would be all-out marvelous to learn that I am somehow wrong and that Islam is willing and able to teach itself better than its current rejection of homosexuality. After all, we are talking about a lot of people indeed.



Mostly not.

I don't know what the laws will be in the future.

Law is a political instrument. That makes it devoid of moral significance, and also somewhat hard to predict.

Even at its best, laws can do no better than to reflect the current moral understanding of any given community.

But if you are asking about my personal support, I have come to conclude that incest can be allowed (but not encouraged) if the proper care to avoid dangerous recessive genes and unhealthy psychological situations is taken.


How do you reconcile that claim with the fairly obvious failure of Islam to bring a better world?



That is not an entirely coherent scenario. Because a whole perfect world would mean that I have no reason to complain, of course, but also because the separations among countries are ultimately fictional; and because communities influence each other even if they do not want to.

In any case, as they say, "the proof is in the pudding". I would like to believe that I would think of each community according to what they actually do.

If you want to have a fruitful discussion, I encourage you to answer the hypothetical question

I'll ask you a clear question.
What if Muslims apply the Sharia Law in their countries not in western countries and they didn't influence or did any explosions in west and relationship with western and whole world is perfect ?

 

[LuisDantas]

If you want to have a fruitful discussion, I encourage you to answer the hypothetical question

I'll ask you a clear question.
What if Muslims apply the Sharia Law in their countries not in western countries and they didn't influence or did any explosions in west and relationship with western and whole world is perfect ?

That is not a clear, or even coherent question. Perfection is perfection. It presumes lack of need for demand of improvements.

 

[Limo]

That is not a clear, or even coherent question. Perfection is perfection. It presumes lack of need for demand of improvements.

What is not clear ?

Muslim countries practice Sharia in Muslim countries

No Radical Islamic Groups.

Do you accept that ?

 

[LuisDantas]

What is not clear ?

Muslim countries practice Sharia in Muslim countries

No Radical Islamic Groups.

Do you accept that ?

Why a perfect world wouud accept distinctions between Muslims and non-Muslims, for one.

 

[Limo]

Why a perfect world wouud accept distinctions between Muslims and non-Muslims, for one.

What does it mean ?
Why don't you give a clear answer ?