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

[Saint Frankenstein]

More like the other way around.

There is little to no lobby for Talmudic or Catholic exceptions to speak of. If there were, they too would have to be specifically denied.

Christians try to change the laws all the time to match their religious beliefs. As for Jews, Israel is governed by Jewish religious law in various ways. It's not a secular country as the US and France are.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Perhaps not at the moment, but many would like to. There's also Cristian Domionists who want to institute a theocracy and enact Biblical law.

Mind you, there's several different systems or schools of Sharia.

All the more reason for preventing these political systems from operating in our respective nations then.

 

[LuisDantas]

Christians try to change the laws all the time to match their religious beliefs. As for Jews, Israel is governed by Jewish religious law in various ways. It's not a secular country as the US and France are.

I stand corrected then: there is not enough of a need to make a point of confronting them at the moment.

Islam is another matter entirely. Hopefully not for long.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Sharia is basically the Islamic equivalent of Talmudic law and Catholic canon law. Those aren't banned, so there's no reason to single out the Islamic one.

There's every reason to ban Sharia first. It's part of a religio-political system aimed at world domination that treats women & non-Muslims as second-class citizens and is at serious risk of spreading into Europe. Christianity's political power has been contained (in Europe at least) by increasing secularisation since the Enlightenment started as well as because of the horrors centuries of religious domination & associated sectarian wars Europeans suffered. Islam experiences little of such restrictions in the Muslim world and seems intent on spreading into Europe assuming this will be the status quo there too. Speaking about religious systems of law more broadly, we shouldn't have parallel legal systems which enable citizens to skirt around human rights legislation.

 

[LuisDantas]

Speaking about religious systems of law more broadly, we shouldn't have parallel legal systems which enable citizens to skirt around human rights legislation.

Least of all when they are theocentric. And when they explicitly dictate religious discrimination and diminished rights for dissidents.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

All the more reason for preventing these political systems from operating in our respective nations then.

I'm not worried about sharia where I live.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I'm not worried about sharia where I live.

I'm not either but that doesn't mean Sharia should be tolerated or, gods forbid, permitted.

 

[LuisDantas]

@A Greased Scotsman - You mean "should", I assume?

@Saint Frankenstein - Most of the time, when we have reason to worry where we live it is too late to make a significant difference.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

@A Greased Scotsman - You mean "should", I assume?

Amended, thank you!

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

There's every reason to ban Sharia first. It's part of a religio-political system aimed at world domination that treats women & non-Muslims as second-class citizens and is at serious risk of spreading into Europe. Christianity's political power has been contained (in Europe at least) by increasing secularisation since the Enlightenment started as well as because of the horrors centuries of religious domination & associated sectarian wars Europeans suffered. Islam experiences little of such restrictions in the Muslim world and seems intent on spreading into Europe assuming this will be the status quo there too. Speaking about religious systems of law more broadly, we shouldn't have parallel legal systems which enable citizens to skirt around human rights legislation.

Yes, I'm quite familiar with your anti-Islam spiel. My point is that it's no different from Christianity, Judaism and other religions. So if you're going to ban sharia, you better be fair and ban the practice of other religions (because that's basically what sharia is - it's the system of teachings of how Muslims should live their lives, which all religions have). There's a wide variety of viewpoints within Islam, different sects, different schools of sharia, etc. The idea that Muslims are going to "take over" Europe is conspiracy crap and fear of the Other. I'm not interested in such silliness.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

@Saint Frankenstein - Most of the time, when we have reason to worry where we live it is too late to make a significant difference.

There's a large Muslim population in my city. Am I supposed to be paranoid and engaging in some campaign against them? Get real.

 

[psychoslice]

I think if the Muslims want to be under such law then let them, as long as it doesn't spill out to their Western neighbors, and of course if it doesn't cause blood shed to anyone, Muslim or Western.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Yes, I'm quite familiar with your anti-Islam spiel. My point is that it's no different from Christianity, Judaism and other religions. So if you're going to ban sharia, you better be fair and ban the practice of other religions (because that's basically what sharia is - it's the system of teachings of how Muslims should live their lives, which all religions have). There's a wide variety of viewpoints within Islam, different sects, different schools of sharia, etc. The idea that Muslims are going to "take over" Europe is conspiracy crap and fear of the Other. I'm not interested in such silliness.

This is the sort of logic that sees someone walking into a Cancer Research fundraising event with a megaphone and loudly demanding that they not focus on curing cancer but work on curing all diseases.

Yes, Frank, I would like to see the political aspects of all religions neutered. And it's okay for me to think that Islamism (and Sharia laws that go with it) is presently the most dangerous of the bunch and, as such, should be dealt with first. because that's the reality on the ground here in Europe where places like Saudi Arabia are given free reign to export Wahabism to our countries through their mosques in ever-growing numbers. Your argument is pretty much one step away from descending to gutter-level and calling me a racist or Islamophobe. Either back away from that or stop dancing and just label me...

I don't think I could ever understand why Pagans will so willingly stick up for a belief system that would see them murdered for what they believe. It's like turkeys defending Christmas.

There's a large Muslim population in my city. Am I supposed to be paranoid and engaging in some campaign against them? Get real.

Luis' arguments focus around the preposition that Islam is the danger, not Muslims. Why do Islam's defenders have such a hard time getting their heads around this?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Your argument is pretty much one step away from descending to gutter-level and calling me a racist or Islamophobe. Either back away from that or stop dancing and just label me...

If the shoe fits, wear it.

I don't think I could ever understand why Pagans will so willingly stick up for a belief system that would see them murdered for what they believe. It's like turkeys defending Christmas.

"Islam" is not some monolithic thing. You should know better than that. Religions are made up of people, and we're talking about hundreds of millions of people here, with a wide diversity of cultures, opinions, theologies, etc. "Islam" doesn't want to do anything, since it's an abstract concept. Yes, there are some Muslims who would kill me, sure. I'm not defending them and it's mostly other Muslims who are fighting against them in the first place. The situation with jihadism is more complicated than just pinning it down as a religious issue in the first place. That's part of it, but hardly the entire picture.

Luis' arguments focus around the preposition that Islam is the danger, not Muslims. Why do Islam's defenders have such a hard time getting their heads around this?

Islam is nothing without Muslims. So you are saying that Muslims are a threat. I don't know why you're trying to separate the two. It's like the morons who say they "hate the sin but love the sinner". It's a passive aggressive cop-out way of saying "I ****ing hate you and you're beneath me" but are too chicken **** to come out and say it.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

If the shoe fits, wear it.

And if you have to stoop to calling someone a racist for criticising an idea then you've just lost the argument.

"Islam" is not some monolithic thing. You should know better than that. Religions are made up of people, and we're talking about hundreds of millions of people here, with a wide diversity of cultures, opinions, theologies, etc. "Islam" doesn't want to do anything, since it's an abstract concept. Yes, there are some Muslims who would kill me, sure. I'm not defending them and it's mostly other Muslims who are fighting against them in the first place. The situation with jihadism is more complicated than just pinning it down as a religious issue in the first place. That's part of it, but hardly the entire picture.

Never said it was. The problem is the fanatical, intolerant elements are hidden within the more tolerant aspects of the faith in a Trojan Horse-esque fashion. In fact, the lines are more blurred than you think because, as you rightly say, Islam is not some monolithic thing. There have been accusations that Glasgow Central Mosque has been perpetuating anti-Ahmadi attitudes in Scotland. How many people who agree with these sentiments are fringe extremists? How many are normal, mainstream Muslims? How many have to hold a belief before it stops becoming a fringe, extremist belief and becomes mainstream & normal?

"Islam" doesn't want to do anything, since it's an abstract concept.

Well we can't be 'racist' or 'phobic' for criticising it then, can we?

Islam is nothing without Muslims. So you are saying that Muslims are a threat.

No, I'm not. We've actually said multiple times that we're not talking about Muslims so I'm close to reaching the point where I think you're deliberately misrepresenting our arguments like so many others because you can't be bothered changing your narrative. It's really old, Frank.

The difference between criticising Islam and attacking Muslims is the same difference between criticising tobacco companies and attacking smokers. I don't think Muslims smokers are inherently more dangerous selfish than the rest of us; I do think that Islam smoking companies should be stopped because it they perpetuates intolerance ill-health and because they're supplying a destructive vice that increases the risk of violent intolerance getting cancer. That not all Muslims smokers actually are violently intolerant get cancer doesn't change the fact that Islam smoking is the main contributor of Islamic intolerance getting cancer.

I don't know why you're trying to separate the two. It's like the morons who say they "hate the sin but love the sinner". It's a passive aggressive cop-out way of saying "I ****ing hate you and you're beneath me" but are too chicken **** to come out and say it.

Because Islam can, must be critiqued in a way that doesn't radicalise or alienate Muslims. Your position is actually self-defeating because you argue criticism must, must, must be an attack on Muslims therefore it is acceptable for Muslims to end up radicalised as a result - therefore we can't ever criticise a bad idea because someone will inevitably be offended, pick up a gun and kill someone over it.

I don't hold the position I do because I think Islam's foreignness makes it 'icky' (hello, I worship foreign gods!) - that sort of thinking would justify last Tuesday's attack on a Muslim woman on Oxford Street. It's inexcusable and speaks to an irrational fear of Muslims which I don't possess (the fear, I mean, not whether its irrational or not). I think Islam's intolerance for other ideas combined with the fact it is very difficult to keep such a totalitarian ideology in check using the power of the State makes it 'icky'.

Your position is actually perpetuating an unwritten blasphemy law moonlighting as a social taboo which makes criticising or mocking an idea as bad as racism which is completely asinine. Not to mention it's soooo stupid to tell me I have an irrational fear of a belief system that wouldn't protect our right to worship freely and would advocate for my (and your) death if we ever ventured into a Muslim country and people found out we're polytheists - as well as one that refuses to protect the rights of minorities to equality under the law.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe I argue the position I do because I don't actually hate Muslims? It doesn't sound like it. It sounds like you're presupposing my intent and criticising my position based on that erroneous assumption.

 

[Shad]

More like the other way around.

There is little to no lobby for Talmudic or Catholic exceptions to speak of. If there were, they too would have to be specifically denied.

Sharia is basically the Islamic equivalent of Talmudic law and Catholic canon law. Those aren't banned, so there's no reason to single out the Islamic one.

In some nations there is no need for a lobby as the religious civil courts, and others, are already in place and have for been centuries or decades. The Church of England is a primary example which can not be divorced from the state. In Canada the removal of UK systems has been underway since the 80s. It depends on place and culture.

In Ontario both Jewish and Catholic systems were already in place. Ironically when the Sharia lobby formed it's petition it was not only rejected but brought to attention special privileges of others resulting in rescinding the policy which allows religious court systems completely.

 

[LuisDantas]

In some nations there is no need for a lobby as the religious civil courts, and others, are already in place and have for been centuries or decades. The Church of England is a primary example which can not be divorced from the state. In Canada the removal of UK systems has been underway since the 80s. It depends on place and culture.

In Ontario both Jewish and Catholic systems were already in place. Ironically when the Sharia lobby formed it's petition it was not only rejected but brought to attention special privileges of others resulting in rescinding the policy which allows religious court systems completely.

Some countries - Germany, the UK, Canada and perhaps some of the Scandinavian countries are in the peculiar situation of having nominal links between the political system and specific religions despite being actually very secularistic in thought.

Conversely, most Muslim countries are so lost in doctrine that their understanding of "secularism" includes Presidents such as Sadam Hussein and the Assads that make a point of claiming to follow Islam and behave in ways that would elsewhere make them be perceived (correctly) as acolytes.

We must make an effort to see beyond nominal claims.

 

[LuisDantas]

@Saint Frankenstein - I don't know if you even attempted to understand what I said. Given how little evidence for the attempt you give, I will not answer at this time. I think I made myself perfectly clear previously.

Be well.

 

[JoStories]

And if you have to stoop to calling someone a racist for criticising an idea then you've just lost the argument.

I agree totally but I also strongly disagree with you and Luis on this argument. Islam is where Christianity was 200 to 300 years ago. Pagans were routinely murdered. And let's not forget the Crusades where Christianity tried to eliminate Muslims back then. I would say that 90% of the Muslims I know are peace loving people who merely wish to practice their faith in peace. Why do you find that unpalatable?

 

[JoStories]

The difference between criticising Islam and attacking Muslims is the same difference between criticising tobacco companies and attacking smokers. I don't think Muslims smokers are inherently more dangerous selfish than the rest of us; I do think that Islam smoking companies should be stopped because it they perpetuates intolerance ill-health and because they're supplying a destructive vice that increases the risk of violent intolerance getting cancer. That not all Muslims smokers actually are violently intolerant get cancer doesn't change the fact that Islam smoking is the main contributor of Islamic intolerance getting cancer.

Continuing with your example of smoking, is smoking not a right of the individual? If we stop people from having the right to smoke, where does this slippery slope stop? Can we ethically stop people from practicing their faith? Isn't that a right that is afforded to all people, no matter where or what faith? I agree that extremists need to be stopped and taken out of the equation but how do you propose to do that? How do you pick those who you think are dangerous and those who are not, if and unless they openly admit to radicalism?