Sharia Law- Laud or Condemn?

[niuniu]

Originally Posted by Sydde

The WBC skanks (tossers) have not heretofore attempted violent conquest of a region/state/country or actual destruction of things that offend them. So far, they are just noise.

The society they're in is different. They're the same sort of crazies but on a tighter leash.

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Surely one could make a similar point about the Westburo Baptist church...

The WBC has maybe 40 members. Not an apt comparison at all IMO

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Originally Posted by Sydde

Here is where we have a problem:

Islamists Torch Timbuktu Library

If they believe Shari'a supports this kind of BS, something needs to be done to eradicate that sort of belief.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Surely one could make a similar point about the Westburo Baptist church...

So, is the torching of the Timbuktu Library (and previous destruction of artifacts a millenium old) wrong, or not?

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

I believe Sharia law is just Islamic cultural law. I see no reason for the sky to fall if people freely choose to use it in family matters and other similar areas.

So, is it OK to burn the library if people "freely choose" it, or, not? Which people? Preserving the artifacts for 1000 years was compatible with some people's Sharia, and, not with other people's Sharia. Cultural relativism doesn't provide an out for this one.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk

So, is the torching of the Timbuktu Library (and previous destruction of artifacts a millenium old) wrong, or not?




So, is it OK to burn the library if people "freely choose" it, or, not? Which people? Preserving the artifacts for 1000 years was compatible with some people's Sharia, and, not with other people's Sharia. Cultural relativism doesn't provide an out for this one.

Burning libraries and destroying artworks is utterly contemptible, whichever way you look at it. These are crimes against humanity.

[Huntn]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Surely one could make a similar point about the Westburo Baptist church...

Indeed.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

I believe Sharia law is just Islamic cultural law. I see no reason for the sky to fall if people freely choose to use it in family matters and other similar areas.

I would have thought US sharia law would be pretty liberal anyway.

Does it exist anywhere in the U.S.? You have a good point that always applies to laws based on a religion- Individuals pick and choose what they want to include and base it on scripture that is not always clear, but reflective of their cultural views and interpretations. It seems to me that the forces who are pushing Sharia Law are the fanatical, intolerant types. Anyone, please correct me if this is false.

[Eraserhead]

Destroying relics is disgusting and a crime against humanity. I merely wanted to point out that crazies aren't confined to Islam or to Africa. Sorry for not being clear.

----------

Originally Posted by Huntn

Indeed.


Does it exist anywhere in the U.S.? You have a good point that always applies to laws based on a religion- Individuals pick and choose what they want to include and base it on scripture that is not always clear, but reflective of their cultural views and interpretations. It seems to me that the forces who are pushing Sharia Law are the fanatical, intolerant types. Anyone, please correct me if this is false.

In the UK the Jews get to use their own laws for some family matters - I fail to see why other religions can't be treated the same.

Sure there could be family pressure to pick a given choice - but that pressure could affect the de-facto outcome anyway.

[sjinsjca]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Surely one could make a similar point about the Westburo Baptist church...

Bingo! My point (in my posts above) entirely.

Intolerance, ignorance, misogyny, homophobia, brutality, racism... there's lots in common between the two retrograde theologies and their adherents.

Let's hope WBC doesn't rule us someday. Or the islamists.

[sjinsjca]

Originally Posted by Huntn

I believe sjinsjca is pointing out practices that are condoned under Sharia law in certain regions?

No. I am pointing out what is ordained by islamic scripture-- the Qu'ran and Hadith.

Some countries and regions interpret and implement things in varying ways, and there are regional customs such as headscarves-vs.-full-burkhas which have nothing to do with the fundament of shari'ah. Similarly there are regional aberrations such as the "dancing boys" of Afghanistan; this does not reflect on shari'ah or its requirements or scriptural foundation.

Those who have replied to this thread saying I don't know what I'm talking about are engaging in meaningless ad hominem knee-jerkery. I invite them to illustrate my alleged wrongness by spotlighting authoritative and comprehensive scripture-based sources specifying (for example) equality of the sexes (in matters of law or inheritance, for instance) or tolerance for homosexuals.

Expect crickets.

----------

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

In the UK the Jews get to use their own laws for some family matters - I fail to see why other religions can't be treated the same.

In the UK, Jews don't regard a woman's testimony in court as worth 1/4 that of a man's, etc.

"Treated the same" is the crux of the matter!

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by sjinsjca

In the UK, Jews don't regard a woman's testimony in court as worth 1/4 that of a man's, etc.

"Treated the same" is the crux of the matter!

If it was introduced it would always be trumped by human rights legislation, so treating a woman has having 1/4 of the worth wouldn't be allowed.

[Huntn]

Originally Posted by sjinsjca

No. I am pointing out what is ordained by islamic scripture-- the Qu'ran and Hadith.

Are these laws written as laws or are they scripture that are interpreted as defacto laws?

[sjinsjca]

Originally Posted by Huntn

Are these laws written as laws or are they scripture that are interpreted as defacto laws?

In practice, both.

[sjinsjca]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

If it was introduced it would always be trumped by human rights legislation, so treating a woman has having 1/4 of the worth wouldn't be allowed.

Maybe in the UK.

(Maybe even in the UK after time. But I wouldn't bet on it, given that such quaint Western notions as freedom-of-speech are routinely ground beneath the boot-heel of islamist sympathies recently.)

But if so, it's not shari'ah, as Qu'ran 24:4 specifies that fornicators be flogged unless four witnesses attest to their defense; hence a woman's testimony in cases of rape counts for nothing unless four male witnesses support her, and in fact her accusation will likely blow back on her and result in horrific punishment by flogging as stipulated by scripture, cf. cases such as http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xtu...s#.URA7rKXWW2w

(I should also note that the Qu'ran regards women's court testimony in financial matters as worth half that of a man's, not 1/4 as in the case of allegations of rape or adultery.)

[Huntn]

Originally Posted by sjinsjca

In practice, both.

Not that one way or the others makes any difference regarding the authenticity of God's rules, but when it comes to interpretation, that's an additional strike. Here's an example, text that in a specific instance: God strikes down the fornicator... God strikes down the homosexual. It's very likely that the inferred laws can come out very different on the other end. This is basically like all 2000 year old religions. We just don't know if what we are reading is God's word, mans' creation, creative interpretation, or combinations of all.

I can easily see no God at all involved in the process, but admit this post veers from the intent of the thread, from a generally reasonable legal system, for the West, does Shiria Law have any place? Let's see a version of it pushed by liberal Muslims and see what we get.

[RSL]

Laws are voted, not written in stone.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by RSL

Laws are voted, not written in stone.

You are including Moses out? Wasn't he a lawgiver?

[PracticalMac]

Religious laws is based on the knowledge of the times, and for the most part is static (a reason governments exist, they are far more flexible with rules).

Many of those laws have sound basis, but to me have ambiguous description, masculine point of view, extreme punishment, or other factors at odds with what is known today.

Sharia, and other such laws, served their purpose and should be retired, or at least updated to reflect what we know about human behavior and importance.

Jesus said it best, love they neighbor, don't keep secrets, forgive (ok, very simplified, but works)

[skunk]

Originally Posted by PracticalMac

Jesus said it best, love they neighbor, don't keep secrets, forgive (ok, very simplified, but works)

I think he also said some stuff about "loving the lord thy god". I expect that got lost in the translation.

[PracticalMac]

Originally Posted by skunk

I think he also said some stuff about "loving the lord thy god". I expect that got lost in the translation.

Of course he did, I was merely pointing out the main difference in the NT from the OT, which also said emphasized reverence to God.

And that is with capital G.

(Or Quran, with capital A)

[firestarter]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

If it was introduced it would always be trumped by human rights legislation, so treating a woman has having 1/4 of the worth wouldn't be allowed.

Finsbury Park 'Muslim Patrol' harasses women on the streets of North London

On another occasion, a woman takes offence to their requests and tells them they are in Great Britain at which point they respond by saying 'they don't respect those who disobey God'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#axzz2K9pppIms

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by firestarter

Finsbury Park 'Muslim Patrol' harasses women on the streets of North London

I would have thought it would be taken a bit more seriously than some nutter on the streets of London.

It would be very similar to the situation for Jews.

[firestarter]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

I would have thought it would be taken a bit more seriously than some nutter on the streets of London.

It would be very similar to the situation for Jews.

Jews / Muslims, doesn't matter.

'Opt in' extra laws are BS, because they fail to protect the weaker members of society (which the British law does aim to protect).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...ords-told.html

Sharia courts ‘as consensual as rape’, House of Lords told

MUSLIM women in Britain are being forced to “live in fear” because of the spread of unofficial and unregulated sharia courts enforcing Islamic rules, the House of Lords was told.