What is wrong with sharia law?

[Kirran]

There may be substantial minorities of Muslims who are secularists, but they will treated in the same harsh manner as infidels if they refuse to fight for Islam.

What about in secular states which are Muslim-majority?

There is no enforce of imperfect interpretion.

But there is! There are plenty of countries which enforce sharia law.

Yes,just one case in religious war.
He convert to other side and betraying his ex-side

So for example if a Muslim in the British Army who has been deployed to Iraq leaves Islam and defects to the other side, is it cool to kill them? Who should kill them? Should the British Army set up a committee specially dedicated to making sure to execute soldiers leaving Islam who defect?

 

[oldbadger]

What you say is akin to claim that I support Trump or Hitler because they sleep and bathe often, as I do.

Wow! Pointing to, say, the law of theft...... part of Sharia, is akin to suggesting that you're a Trump supporter?

Of course not everything in any non-satirical proposal will need to be disagreed with.

...the above suggestion was serious?...!!!!

I do not welcome the attempt at obfuscation.

Let me be clear...... Billions of Muslims believe that Sharia law protects them.
But many folks now think of vigilantes and and the several laws which are unnacceptable.

Clearly, if the unnacceptable laws were done away, and the vigilantes stopped, then Sharia would not look quite as bad.

To Clarify my opinion:
I object to several 'parts' of Islam, particularly their belief that if their children can learn the Quran by heart then the parents get a frre-pass into Heaven. a few years ago I ran a thread about a Cardiff couple who beat their little boy to death because he could not remember his lines, then set their house afire to cover up the murder.
Only one member, @savagewind wholly supported my points, I believe?
You see? A glaringly clear example of how I myself object to one part of a thing whilst debating (in part) for some of that Faith's laws.

Clear?

 

[Notanumber]

What about in secular states which are Muslim-majority?

There is a wealth of information here.

Islam: The Politically Incorrect Truth

 

[Kirran]

There is a wealth of information here.

Taqiyya: Deception and Lying in Islam

Would you explain how this relates to my question?

There are Muslim-majority countries which are secular. Who do you think is engaging in religiously-endorsed misinformation there exactly?

 

[Notanumber]

Would you explain how this relates to my question?

There are Muslim-majority countries which are secular. Who do you think is engaging in religiously-endorsed misinformation there exactly?

It is only a matter of time.

 

[Kirran]

It is only a matter of time.

Until what? Secularism's spread continues in Muslim-majority countries?

 

[Notanumber]

Until what? Secularism's spread continues in Muslim-majority countries?

We can only hope so.

 

[Kirran]

We can only hope so.

Well, there we are then. Glad we're on the same page.

Of course we can do more than hope - by listening to and respecting Muslim figures who promote such ideals we give them the legitimacy they deserve.

 

[Notanumber]

Well, there we are then. Glad we're on the same page.

Of course we can do more than hope - by listening to and respecting Muslim figures who promote such ideals we give them the legitimacy they deserve.

When you study the evidence they have a lot to do and little time to do it.

 

[Kirran]

When you study the evidence they have a lot to do and little time to do it.

Why do they have little time? What would bring on a deadline?

 

[firedragon]

Yo, you a secularist?

Lol. I dont really know if I am a secularist Kirran. I do believe in the Quranic law. I believe the Quran points a certain direction and it is upto society to make a country. And if the society is mixed then it will be a mix of ideas.

Nevertheless I believe there is no one Shariah. Shariah means the path to water. But its the laws apparently understood from the Quran, ahadith and Sunnah. There are so many of this that contradicts eachother like chalk and cheese. Chalk and cheese I say. Oh you can write a volumes and volumes only on the contradictions.

The fikh is the activation part of it. Fikh activates Shariah. Rulings and judgments. Ultimately when you come to the Fikh, it has completely gone a million miles away from the Quran, and is not healthy.

 

[Notanumber]

Why do they have little time? What would bring on a deadline?

The birth rate.

 

[sovietchild]

Get back to the right track with Shariah? Thats a joke.

And if you tell me the one Shariah, or the one book of Shariah, considerations can be done.

Do you have better ideas?

 

[Kirran]

The birth rate.

Would you mind elaborating?

 

[Notanumber]

Would you mind elaborating?

Try doing some research of your own.

 

[Kirran]

Try doing some research of your own.

Well I have done so, and continue to do so. One part of that is hearing different people's views and how they back them up.

I have always found reality to be rather more nuanced than we often like to think.

 

[firedragon]

Do you have better ideas?

Aaaah. I hate this question because that makes one come out either as the devil or as an egoistic self-praiser.

Nevertheless I say Of course mate.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Interesting that orthodox Judaism views eye for eye similar to how you view it. Are you aware of what the phrase really means? It certainly doesn't mean to poke out someone's eye although it is commonly misunderstood to mean that.

If you actually read through Exodus and Leviticus, our laws do not in anyway resemble their laws. When you read Jesus, our laws do not reflect what he taught. When you read Paul, our laws do not reflect what he taught. When you read John Locke, John Stewart Mill, and other Enlightenment philosophers, you'll find our laws resonate with their words.

That's what we did. We could not stand England's outdated laws, so we founded America.

A ton of American laws and principles, at least when Thomas Jefferson wrote the Constitution, where based heavily on Enlightened philosophers (especially John Locke, whom Jefferson more or less plagarized), with a whopping deal of "carry overs" from British law. When he wrote that law about presidents having to be naturalized citizens, that wasn't exactly defined, but it comes from British law, which is how the Canadian born Ted Cruz is eligible to run for president.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

After you learn how to read and graduate high school, then take a year of history in college like I did. Then call yourself full of makebelieve and hogwash.

My high schooldays are 65 years in the past. I have spent most of that time as a working liberal.
With a solid grounding in the subject, up to constituency chairman level.

 

[Brian Schuh]

My high schooldays are 65 years in the past. I have spent most of that time as a working liberal.
With a solid grounding in the subject, up to constituency chairman level.

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?