Which one is better foundation for a legal system, the Qur`an or the Bible?

[Godwilling]

The legal system in western countries is based largely on Christianity and with time it evolved in each country according to the political evolution of each of those countries.

While in the U.K. has been legal to abort for decades, it is still not legal to be the monarch if you are a catholic or if you are the first born female if you have a brother. I believe that is changing this year.

In Ireland on the other hand, abortion has been illegal even when the conception was effected through rape.

Fortunately, the original version of Christian Law, The Inquisition, does no longer exist in any western state.

In the U.S., the law changes from state to state depending on their level and version of Christianity.

Most citizens of western countries are generally accepting of the laws of their countries, yet there was an international uproar when the provisional government of Libya announced that their constitution would be based on the Qur`an.

Are western countries attempting to impose their version of Christian Law on Muslims and expecting those Muslim countries to abandon all versions of Sharia Law?

 

[Revoltingest]

The legal system in western countries is based largely on Christianity....

I don't buy the premise.
People often think that because a system comports with Xianity, that Xianity is the root.
But back to the OP, if I had to choose between the 2, I'd select against Islam.

 

[Breathe]

Are western countries attempting to impose their version of Christian Law on Muslims and expecting those Muslim countries to abandon all versions of Sharia Law?

I don't think they're imposing "their version of Christian law on Muslims".
I do think that they may be imposing secular law against sharia law, though.

 

[Godwilling]

I don't buy the premise.
People often think that because a system comports with Xianity, that Xianity is the root.
But back to the OP, if I had to choose between the 2, I'd select against Islam.

All the French revolutionaries were Christians and their laws were based on their learned Christian principals and they referred to those often.

The U.S. law was an attempt at keeping Church and State separate. Look at the school curriculum in Texas and tell me if the "Founding Fathers" accomplished their goals. Look at the US currency: "In God we Trust".

The pyramid of power of Capitalism relies on the power of the church to indoctrinate.

Political forces eroded the power of the Church, and democracy improved some of the harsh religious laws and eliminated others. Capital punishment is a legacy of religious law and while illegal in most developed countries is still a reality in most underdeveloped countries and in a number of states in the US.

 

[Revoltingest]

The pyramid of power of Capitalism relies on the power of the church to indoctrinate.

Capitalism thrives just fine among us atheists.

 

[Awoon]

The two religions in the OP believe the Universe is a monarchy.

The U.S. isnt. So which form of government is best? Monarchy or not Monarchy?

 

[Godwilling]

I don't think they're imposing "their version of Christian law on Muslims".
I do think that they may be imposing secular law against sharia law, though.

We would like to think of the laws in western countries as secular, but those laws have evolved from religious law. That is the reason for the contentious state of laws regarding abortion, marriages (gender and number of spouses), capital punishment, and others.

While those laws may not be the specific prescriptions of a single religion, they have their origins on Christian Law because those are the believes of the majority.

The majority of people in the Middle East are Muslims and pretending that their laws are not going to reflect their believes would be hypocritical on their part. Sharia Law is the Muslim equivalent of western law based on Christian principles. The question is, how fundamentalist do they want to make their Sharia Law?

I don't think Libyans have the appetite for more tyranny, but history is being made as we speak, and we shall see.

There was Sharia Law in Al-Andalus between 711 and 1492 and Al-Andalus saw the rise in cultural exchange and cooperation between Christians, Muslims, and Jews. Under the Caliphate of Córdoba, al-Andalus was a beacon of learning, and the city of Córdoba became one of the leading cultural and economic centres in both the Mediterranean Basin and the Islamic world.This is the time of the dark ages in the rest of Europe were the Christians burned each other for such crimes as "witchcraft".

 

[Godwilling]

The two religions in the OP believe the Universe is a monarchy.

The U.S. isnt. So which form of government is best? Monarchy or not Monarchy?

Both Sweeden and Denmark are monarchies and the citizens of each of those countries report greater level of satisfaction with their respective governments than those of the U.S.

Hitler, Musolini, Franco, Mao, and Stalin were not monarchs. Would you have liked to live under their rules?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If the question in the thread title, "Which one is better foundation for a legal system, the Qur'an or the Bible?", makes sense at all, then it implies that there's some standard of good or bad external to both the Qur'an and the Bible that we can use to measure which one's better.

If this is the case, then why not use that standard as the basis for our legal system instead of the Qur'an or the Bible?

 

[Caladan]

There was Sharia Law in Al-Andalus between 711 and 1492 and Al-Andalus saw the rise in cultural exchange and cooperation between Christians, Muslims, and Jews. Under the Caliphate of Córdoba, al-Andalus was a beacon of learning, and the city of Córdoba became one of the leading cultural and economic centres in both the Mediterranean Basin and the Islamic world.This is the time of the dark ages in the rest of Europe were the Christians burned each other for such crimes as "witchcraft".

This is a good point. however it is also anachronistic. the world today is different.
the success of the Caliphate of Cordoba was because of its ability to tolerate pluralistic thought. its worth noting that Western secular thought in part developed from philosophical thought inside the Caliphate, which in turn developed on classical thinkers such as Aristotle.

 

[Photonic]

The Qu'ran would actually be quite a good one if it didn't always get abused by those who actually DO use it.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Personally, I much prefer the Baha'i administrative system!

Not only is it eminently unific; it's free from partisan politics and all the horrors thereof!

We have fully democratic elections where there are no nominations, no campaigning, and no discussion of individual personalities!

After a period of meditation and reflection, each person votes for those individuals he or she feels will serve best. Those receiving the most votes are automatically elected. There is thus no opportunity either to "run for office" or, if elected, to refuse to serve (except in cases of hardship).

Works great for us!

Bruce

 

[Photonic]

Personally, I much prefer the Baha'i administrative system!

Not only is it eminently unific; it's free from partisan politics and all the horrors thereof!

We have fully democratic elections where there are no nominations, no campaigning, and no discussion of individual personalities!

After a period of meditation and reflection, each person votes for those individuals he or she feels will serve best. Those receiving the most votes are automatically elected. There is thus no opportunity either to "run for office" or, if elected, to refuse to serve (except in cases of hardship).

Works great for us!

Bruce

Who chooses the ones who are candidates?

 

[Godwilling]

This is a good point. however it is also anachronistic. the world today is different.
the success of the Caliphate of Cordoba was because of its ability to tolerate pluralistic thought. its worth noting that Western secular thought in part developed from philosophical thought inside the Caliphate, which in turn developed on classical thinkers such as Aristotle.

I agree with you in every point. I just want to add that it was not just "tolerance of pluralistic thought", but rather acceptance and embrace of pluralistic thought. This ideology of Spain at the time was based on Sharia Law because the rulers were Muslims. Al-Andalus, or Spanish, interpretation of Sharia Law, the "live and let live" attitude of the Spaniards that was destroyed by the Catholic Monarchs in the 15th century, was much more civilized than most legal systems in the world today.
And this brings me back to my point: Sharia, Christian, or Rabbinic Laws are not monolithic. Each depends on the interpretation of their interpreters, and equating Sharia Law with beheadings is as narrow minded as equating Rabbinic Law with "an eye for an eye".

 

[cablescavenger]

Are western countries attempting to impose their version of Christian Law on Muslims and expecting those Muslim countries to abandon all versions of Sharia Law?

No.

Libya was already Muslim with Sharia law

 

[tumbleweed41]

Most western countries base their legal systems and governments on the Greek and Roman Republics and City/States.

That any religion can infiltrate the legal system is a given, but Christianity is not the "basis" of these legal systems.

 

[Twig pentagram]

I think both of them are equally terrible choices.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I think both of them are equally terrible choices.

This :yes:

 

[England my lionheart]

I think both books are too ambiguos to be the foundation for a legal system or Government

 

[Viker]

Both Sweeden and Denmark are monarchies and the citizens of each of those countries report greater level of satisfaction with their respective governments than those of the U.S.

Hitler, Musolini, Franco, Mao, and Stalin were not monarchs. Would you have liked to live under their rules?

I personally would much rather both monarchs and dictators be a thing of the past. Not that all monarchs have been terrible. But what's the point any longer?

In Sweden and Denmark, those monarchs are mere museum pieces. They're only figureheads ( This may be why their people are so satisfied ).