What is wrong with sharia law?

[lewisnotmiller]

An eye for an eye
A tooth for a tooth
Sharia law is the essence of all religions revealed to all messengers before Muhammed and the Christ. All other religions except Islam were maimed with a lot of attrition and mutations by the Messing of people. Christianity is having a new face every 100 years . Islam managed to survive because of this Sharia as prestine as it was.

Pristine?

Which version?

 

[Papoon]

Sharia law can not be applied in non-muslim areas. It is a by product of being Muslim to maintain tranquility and security.

Agree. Generally speaking, anything is normal if everyone is doing it.

Two points.
Firstly, I doubt that Muslims would support an enclave of Aussies like me in a Muslim country, Indonesia perhaps, demanding our own court system there.

Secondly, I think a major concern for non-Muslim people in all this is the perceived global missionary goal of Islam.
I.e. That all areas are ultimately Muslim areas except in the eyes of the ignorant.

BTW, I say that knowing full well the colonialist history of the west, which was a brutal horror show. And I am sure there are plenty of influential neocon forces out there with their agenda too.

Collective beliefs take on a life of their own it seems.
Who ya gonna call ?

 

[oldbadger]

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

Hi.....
I was writing to a Bahai.
Bahais have a rule that they should obey the laws of elected governments in the lands which they live in.

But regardless of that, I would advise you or anyone to obey laws of lands which you visit or stay in. That's a realy good idea,

If you object strongly to a particular country, for goodness sake just don't go there. We get Brits leaving secure compounds (where some laws are relaxed) in foriegn countries and then getting caught with booze or whatever. Ouch!

 

[Shad]

An eye for an eye
A tooth for a tooth
Sharia law is the essence of all religions revealed to all messengers before Muhammed and the Christ. All other religions except Islam were maimed with a lot of attrition and mutations by the Messing of people. Christianity is having a new face every 100 years . Islam managed to survive because of this Sharia as prestine as it was.

Which merely disables a person by mutilation further restricting the available job opportunities after their sentence is complete. Having a hand chopped off restrict jobs available in the labour market. The labour market is one of the only markets which requires no secondary education but is open to advancement with higher wages. Service jobs do not provide this. Most criminals are not collage graduates. More so John One-Hand will need to either find funding for a prosthesis themselves be it private health insurance or not. If John is in a state with a national system the state ends up paying the cost of their own method of punishment for the rest of John's life. Cost such as medical issues with the limb, prosthesis and replacements, physical therapy for recovery and training to use a prosthesis. This is financially inefficient. In the end such criminal codes do nothing to promote reform it just use the threat of punishment making it draconian and only a deterrent. It does nothing to solve the issue behind different crimes which is largely cultural and economic. It does not produce reformed citizen that are productive to society rather than a burden.

Do note your examples and others have made. Many are socialist nations with an unsound economic plans or just open dictators using the socialist label. The crime rates are high as poverty is through the roof. These are economic issues. Many issues are cultural such as high single mother rates. Which is simply people not teaching their children personal responsibility for their actions. This creates another economic issues as a result of a cultural issue. A threat of violence is not going to convince someone that must make a poor choice that is better than the alternatives. Such as people being unable to feed their families. They are going to make a poor choice which is the best from a selection of poor choices.

Actually study why people commit crimes rather than merely thinking bad people commit crimes because they are bad people.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Yes they have. The Declaration of Independence states "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

It would take a very wild interpretation for that to mean by armed insurrection.

 

[Kirran]

I disagree. In instances where someone take it upon themselves to publically and brutally slay a fellow citizen, they forfeit their right to life. I'm certainly not suggesting bashing their heads in with rocks or electrocuting them, but I feel that they deserve to die. Especially when they're caught red-handed, as with the two murderers in London.

If the state is what decides if our 'right to life' has been forfeited, that means it was what granted us that right to begin.

That isn't how rights work.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Then how is it you are not aware that a liberal in the 1700's is entirely not anything close to a liberal today? And did you comprehend my post that you allegedly read? No government I am aware of has ever wrote a provision in their constitution for armed revolution except the USA in our 2nd amendment. The liberalism of that time, the 1700's 1800's and even prior resulted in the Bill of Rights.

But should I have to educate you on this, don't you already know?

Liberal philosophy has remained the same . Policies change with circumstances.

 

[Godobeyer]

Well then I must disagree!

I see no problem,yes most of Muslim countries used Sharia law,which almost the same laws like :Egypt,Morroco,Algeria,Tunisia,Saudi Arabia ,Kuwiet,Emarites,Bahrian,Yeman,Sudan,I think also Malysia,Indonisia....etc

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?

Jihad(war) in Islam is only for defend for your self.
In religious war,"you fighting me because I am Muslim",yes it's ok to defend.
Your second exemple,in religious wars that may called traitor.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Hi.....
I was writing to a Bahai.
Bahais have a rule that they should obey the laws of elected governments in the lands which they live in.

But regardless of that, I would advise you or anyone to obey laws of lands which you visit or stay in. That's a realy good idea,

If you object strongly to a particular country, for goodness sake just don't go there. We get Brits leaving secure compounds (where some laws are relaxed) in foriegn countries and then getting caught with booze or whatever. Ouch!

Thanks for clarifying.
As for the last paragraph, sure. I get what you mean. But I can't travel to Saudi and NOT be an atheist. Nor can people change their sexual orientation. Naturally, discretion is smarter. But there are also times to take a stand. Context matters.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hi.....
I was writing to a Bahai.
Bahais have a rule that they should obey the laws of elected governments in the lands which they live in.

But regardless of that, I would advise you or anyone to obey laws of lands which you visit or stay in. That's a realy good idea,

If you object strongly to a particular country, for goodness sake just don't go there. We get Brits leaving secure compounds (where some laws are relaxed) in foriegn countries and then getting caught with booze or whatever. Ouch!

That is probably fine for minor situations and quick stays.

In the general case, though, it must be acknowledged that the proper relationship between people and laws involves the need to at least occasionally challenge the law on behalf of the community.

Laws are inherently a political tool. And as such, they need correction, among other reasons in order to make or keep them morally acceptable.

 

[Kirran]

I see no problem,yes most of Muslim countries used Sharia law,which almost the same laws like :Egypt,Morroco,Algeria,Tunisia,Saudi Arabia ,Kuwiet,Emarites,Bahrian,Yeman,Sudan,I think also Malysia,Indonisia....etc

So you think that stoning adulterers in Northern Malaysia, triple talaq divorce in India (Muslims there have sharia family law), the death penalty for atheism in Saudi Arabia and capital punishment for homosexuality across many countries is all in keeping with a good interpretation of sharia law?

Jihad(war) in Islam is only for defend for your self.
In religious war,"you fighting me because I am Muslim",yes it's ok to defend.
Your second exemple,in religious wars that may called traitor.

Right, so if someone switches side but remains Muslim should they be killed, or is it only if they change their religion that they should be killed?

In either case, any state which institutes the death penalty for apostasy is surely out of line by this understanding.

 

[oldbadger]

Thanks for clarifying.
As for the last paragraph, sure. I get what you mean. But I can't travel to Saudi and NOT be an atheist. Nor can people change their sexual orientation. Naturally, discretion is smarter. But there are also times to take a stand. Context matters.

Fair enough.
I can feel great sadness when reading and hearing about executions in lands like Iran, carried out upon Gays, accused adulterers, apostates etc but I also feel sadness when I hear that a young person was caught teaching children to ignore the land's religion, laws, etc Now that is classed (in those lands!) as a form of anti-establishment indoctrination. Some folks somewhere were happy to let such a person risk their life to do that. If that person was any friend of mine I would have been pleading with them to do anything else!

I'm also sad when folks will appeal again and again, for us to fremember their fallken martyrs, whilst not raising a murmur for the fallen Gays, Transexuals, adultuers, possibly because they actually class such folks as criminals themselves.

 

[oldbadger]

That is probably fine for minor situations and quick stays.

In the general case, though, it must be acknowledged that the proper relationship between people and laws involves the need to at least occasionally challenge the law on behalf of the community.

Laws are inherently a political tool. And as such, they need correction, among other reasons in order to make or keep them morally acceptable.

My first wife knew friends in Iran. Since her death I have lost contact with them. I most absolutely certainly would not suggest to any Iranian national that they teach or make speech in contention against the established laws.

I remember an Iranian hotelier who lived here (Kent, England) who heard that a relative had been arrested and charged with a religious offence. Despite all appeals not to, he jumped on a plane to Tehran. He was arrested as he left the aircraft and was executed the following Friday. (circa 1977)

But leaving Iran to one side, how would you react if your children came home from school spouting political or religious ideas about legislation?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

But leaving Iran to one side, how would you react if your children came home from school spouting political or religious ideas about legislation?

From school? Not happy, if you mean they were being taught a particular political or religious viewpoint by the school itself. Otherwise, it's more a chance for discussion.

 

[oldbadger]

From school? Not happy, if you mean they were being taught a particular political or religious viewpoint by the school itself. Otherwise, it's more a chance for discussion.

Sadly, yes.......

 

[Godobeyer]

So you think that stoning adulterers in Northern Malaysia, triple talaq divorce in India (Muslims there have sharia family law), the death penalty for atheism in Saudi Arabia and capital punishment for homosexuality across many countries is all in keeping with a good interpretation of sharia law?

Yes there is some exceptions,I don't know about N Malaysia.I am against stoning adulterers.
homosexuality is not allowed in most of most countries,if someone can't follow the laws of that country,I think he should move to other country.same to Muslims in West.

Right, so if someone switches side but remains Muslim should they be killed, or is it only if they change their religion that they should be killed?

Just because they changed ?
NO.

In religious war,If they changed it and they become traitors in ,yes they should be killed.because they become in enemy side.

In either case, any state which institutes the death penalty for apostasy is surely out of line by this understanding.

In one case in religious war,so become an enemy.

 

[LuisDantas]

My first wife knew friends in Iran. Since her death I have lost contact with them. I most absolutely certainly would not suggest to any Iranian national that they teach or make speech in contention against the established laws.

Fair enough. But what do you think that shows? That Iran does not have a healthy relationship with its own laws?

I remember an Iranian hotelier who lived here (Kent, England) who heard that a relative had been arrested and charged with a religious offence. Despite all appeals not to, he jumped on a plane to Tehran. He was arrested as he left the aircraft and was executed the following Friday. (circa 1977)

But leaving Iran to one side, how would you react if your children came home from school spouting political or religious ideas about legislation?

I would expect them to. Don't you?

Had I children, odds are that I would be talking to them about ethics and the lesser role of the law for a long time before school had a chance to.

 

[Brian Schuh]

I believe in eye for eye and tooth for tooth as the most gentle justice. If Shariah law says to chop off the hand of a thief, for stealing a dollar, then that isn't a dollar for dollar but a hand for a dollar.

In ancient times there was an argument that if a man put out someone's eye, we cannot punish him by putting out his eye because he might bleed to death and that would be a life for an eye and not just an eye for an eye. So the ancient rabbis set a certain sum of money as compensation/restitution for the eye.

When properly understood, eye for eye justice is the most humane gentle justice ever conceived.

A woman lost a tooth in a fight, so she hired someone to knock out the offenders teeth, claiming tooth for tooth. I told her she was wrong because she took several teeth for a tooth. But it is common for people to misunderstand this.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Which merely disables a person by mutilation further restricting the available job opportunities after their sentence is complete. Having a hand chopped off restrict jobs available in the labour market. The labour market is one of the only markets which requires no secondary education but is open to advancement with higher wages. Service jobs do not provide this. Most criminals are not collage graduates. More so John One-Hand will need to either find funding for a prosthesis themselves be it private health insurance or not. If John is in a state with a national system the state ends up paying the cost of their own method of punishment for the rest of John's life. Cost such as medical issues with the limb, prosthesis and replacements, physical therapy for recovery and training to use a prosthesis. This is financially inefficient. In the end such criminal codes do nothing to promote reform it just use the threat of punishment making it draconian and only a deterrent. It does nothing to solve the issue behind different crimes which is largely cultural and economic. It does not produce reformed citizen that are productive to society rather than a burden.

Do note your examples and others have made. Many are socialist nations with an unsound economic plans or just open dictators using the socialist label. The crime rates are high as poverty is through the roof. These are economic issues. Many issues are cultural such as high single mother rates. Which is simply people not teaching their children personal responsibility for their actions. This creates another economic issues as a result of a cultural issue. A threat of violence is not going to convince someone that must make a poor choice that is better than the alternatives. Such as people being unable to feed their families. They are going to make a poor choice which is the best from a selection of poor choices.

Actually study why people commit crimes rather than merely thinking bad people commit crimes because they are bad people.

Chopping the hand off of a thief is not eye for eye, tooth for tooth justice. If a thief steals a dollar, he should pay back a dollar. Dollar for dollar, not a hand for a dollar. As you say in your post, a thief's hand is worth more to him and society at large if he is a worker, then any number of dollars he stole.

Eye for eye justice would say the thief pays dollar for dollar, not body parts for a dollar.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

It would take a very wild interpretation for that to mean by armed insurrection.

Not really, as that's the common interpretation of that expectation. Problem being is that currently in the US, the militia, police, and military itself outgun the people.

------------------

If the state is what decides if our 'right to life' has been forfeited, that means it was what granted us that right to begin.

That isn't how rights work.

Actually that's exactly how rights work, we're just fool enough (or perhaps that's the intent) to call them "rights" and not "privileges". Rights do not actually exist, they are not inherent or "god-given." They are granted and maintained by the mutual agreement and good graces of a society. You've a right to do whatever you want in your home... until your neighbor calls the cops on you and that "right" is taken away. We've a right to say whatever we want... until it offends someone, is deemed "hate speech" or "microaggressions," and suddenly we can't say much anymore.

What's more it's been like this since recorded history. No one has the "right to life", we have what we take - just ask any class of slave throughout history, or even Japanese-Americans during World War II. We have the privilege to live in our society and nation, and when we betray that privilege and trust, we are punished for it. So it only stands to reason that if you betray that frith and kill someone in your society - when you are supposed to look out for one another - the punishment is to not live in that society. For some murderers, we exile them to prison. If it's extreme enough, they lose their "right" to life entirely.