What is wrong with sharia law?

[Brian Schuh]

All of the just ones. Eye for eye and tooth for tooth means the punishment fits the crime. And it is not literal.

You don't retaliate by taking 2 teeth for only one tooth. It is exact compensation. If I steal a dollar, I repay a dollar. It is the gentlest justice.

Eye for eye doesn't mean I serve 30 days in jail for stealing a dollar. That is not equal and exact compensation, which would literally be, give the dollar back. Dollar for dollar.

 

[Kirran]

All of the just ones. Eye for eye and tooth for tooth means the punishment fits the crime. And it is not literal.

You don't retaliate by taking 2 teeth for only one tooth. It is exact compensation. If I steal a dollar, I repay a dollar. It is the gentlest justice.

So you would say that all those justice systems which ban the death penalty (a lot of countries) are in some sense unjust?

 

[Brian Schuh]

Eye for eye doesn't mean I serve 30 days in jail for stealing a dollar. That is not equal and exact compensation, which would literally be, give the dollar back. Dollar for dollar.

The gentlest form of justice, eye for eye and tooth for tooth.

 

[Brian Schuh]

So you would say that all those justice systems which ban the death penalty (a lot of countries) are in some sense unjust?

No comment. I am going to win a scholarship to continue college based on an essay on the death penalty. So you see it is complex and there is $ in it for me.

 

[Kirran]

No comment. I am going to win a scholarship to continue college based on an essay on the death penalty. So you see it is complex and there is $ in it for me.

Right, fair enough then. I'll say up front that I am very strongly against the death penalty, and I consider any country which enshrines it in law to be violating human rights in doing so.

 

[oldbadger]

Some groups of colonists left England to escape religious persecution. Which from what you say about Islam, England might still be persecuting other religions.

The Church of England started because one of your kings wanted a divorce.

Oh please!
That's all just too embarrassing!
Earlier Hentry wrote a wonderful pamphlet which supported Catholicism against all that Protestantism sweeping in from Ger,any and places. Wolselet most most impressed.
Then, later, because he fancied this chick and couldn't get a legal divorce he decided to change his Faith.
.....and what he did to the monasteries........

Later on he was allowing both Catholics and rotestants to be executed......... Oh dear.

.....for shame!

 

[Godobeyer]

It's nice when that happens

I meant by "we", the Muslims

I have heard of the Ridda Wars. But OK, so say somebody switches side, but doesn't change their religion? i.e. they are fighting on the other side in the war now but are still Muslim? Do you kill them?

Yes that war happened afte4 the death of Prophet,
was about some tribes got rebellion about Zakah,not about being left Islam. I don't know why its called Riddah in first place!

Support your question by better example.plz

 

[Brian Schuh]

Oh please!
That's all just too embarrassing!
Earlier Hentry wrote a wonderful pamphlet which supported Catholicism against all that Protestantism sweeping in from Ger,any and places. Wolselet most most impressed.
Then, later, because he fancied this chick and couldn't get a legal divorce he decided to change his Faith.
.....and what he did to the monasteries........

Later on he was allowing both Catholics and rotestants to be executed......... Oh dear.

.....for shame!

Ive read ancient to middle ages history of England, partly historical and partly myth. Besides Kng Arthur, I am most impressed with King Lear. Who had 3 beautiful daughters. Shakespeare immortalized his story in a play.

Yeah, England has had embarrassing moments but good ones too.

 

[Notanumber]

Right, fair enough then. I'll say up front that I am very strongly against the death penalty, and I consider any country which enshrines it in law to be violating human rights in doing so.

Can we add corporal punishment to that statement?

 

[Kirran]

I meant by "we", the Muslims

Well then I must disagree!

Yes that war happened afte4 the death of Prophet,
was about some tribes got rebellion about Zakah,not about being left Islam. I don't know why its called Riddah in first place!

Support your question by better example.plz

Say there is a society (Group A) composed of Muslims, and they are at war with another society (Group B) composed of non-Muslims. If somebody in Group A leaves Islam and goes to fight for Group B, then it's OK to kill them. But what if somebody in Group A goes to fight for Group B, but remains a Muslim? Do you kill them?

Can we add corporal punishment to that statement?

Yeah, I'm pretty open to including that. Although maybe not with quite the same severity!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Are you aware that the Jehovah Witness church has some similar system? Even over alcohol and fornication? Yet the worst they can do is disfellowship you as they don't have the guns the cops do nor keys to the jails. Should their "courts" be outlawed as well?

You realise you've misinterpreted the OP, right? This isn't about 'opt-in' religious courts which legally have as much power as mediation.
This is about replacing US criminal law with Shariah.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I am sorry about Mona.
But I notice that Bahais take absolutely no apparent interest in the scores of executions which take place each month in Iran, only Bahai ones?

Look...... you are supposed to OBEY the laws of the land that you live in. If you don't like the laws you shou either leave or STAY-WITHIN-THE-LAWS-OF-THE-ELECTED-GOVERNMENT!

I am sorry about Mona, but she was teaching children AGAINST THE LAWS OF AN ELECTED GOVERNMENT!

....................................

Further, Iran is a Shi'ite government and many neighbouring Muslim governments do not accept Iran. Can you tell me how many Muslims get hanged each month?

No interest?

................................

A Bahai World House of Justice in a Bahai World would be pretty terrifying to some folks, methinks.

You can't seriously believe the laws of the land should be obeyed regardless of their content...
Tell me it isn't so!

 

[Brian Schuh]

You realise you've misinterpreted the OP, right? This isn't about 'opt-in' religious courts which legally have as much power as mediation.
This is about replacing US criminal law with Shariah.

Oh, my bad. As you were.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

So you would say that all those justice systems which ban the death penalty (a lot of countries) are in some sense unjust?

Yes. A society certainly shouldn't enshrine the death penalty; it's something to be undertaken quite seriously. No hands for theft, for example. Yet if someone is a mass murderer, they deserve death. There is no justice in sentencing them to serve "several lifetimes" in prison at the expense of the people. They then become our burden even more.

 

[Brian Schuh]

You realise you've misinterpreted the OP, right? This isn't about 'opt-in' religious courts which legally have as much power as mediation.
This is about replacing US criminal law with Shariah.

We could start a new thread about private religious courts as an alternative to public courts, but probably there would be no debate because everyone would agree.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Yes. A society certainly shouldn't enshrine the death penalty; it's something to be undertaken quite seriously. No hands for theft, for example. Yet if someone is a mass murderer, they deserve death. There is no justice in sentencing them to serve "several lifetimes" in prison at the expense of the people. They then become our burden even more.

Are you aware it costs more tax dollars for a man to be executed than for him to serve life without parole?

 

[Kirran]

Yes. A society certainly shouldn't enshrine the death penalty; it's something to be undertaken quite seriously. No hands for theft, for example. Yet if someone is a mass murderer, they deserve death. There is no justice in sentencing them to serve "several lifetimes" in prison at the expense of the people. They then become our burden even more.

Firstly, what @Brian Schuh said.

Secondly, deserve is a thoroughly subjective statement.

Thirdly, are you from the United States?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

We could start a new thread about private religious courts as an alternative to public courts, but probably there would be no debate because everyone would agree.

It's an interesting topic. Not sure I'd have much to offer, but I'd at least read along.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Are you aware it costs more tax dollars for a man to be executed than for him to serve life without parole?

It doesn't have to. I'm not saying it's a perfect system (it should not cost $1.26 million to execute someone), but in some instances it is just.

deserve is a thoroughly subjective statement.

I find my locale to be of little bearing on the issue. While many instances can be subjective, would you say that there is room for defense for Timothy McVeigh's actions? What about Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale?

 

[Kirran]

I find my locale to be of little bearing on the issue. While many instances can be subjective, would you say that there is room for defense for Timothy McVeigh's actions? What about Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale?

Well it would make more sense for you to be pro death penalty if you lived somewhere that carried it out, where it was still an acceptable topic in public discourse. It isn't really in the society I grew up in.

I'm not saying there's room for defence. But I don't the state ever has legitimacy to kill somebody, I think that a state purporting to representing us committing murder on our behalf brutalises us a society and goes against the very highest principles of morality. It is a disgusting and utterly reprehensible phenomenon to me.