Do You Obey The Law Because You're Afraid of Jail?

[Titanic]

I am not really afraid of going to jail. I obey the law mostly cause it's the right thing to do and I actually have ethic's and moral's.

 

[Wirey]

I am not really afraid of going to jail. I obey the law mostly cause it's the right thing to do and I actually have ethic's and moral's.

I used to have those, but I traded them for some Magic Beans.

 

[Titanic]

I used to have those, but I traded them for some Magic Beans.

I would have got a Magic flying carp instead. That's just me though.

 

[Vinayaka]

I just flipped off a twit on 97th street and spat on their windshield. I tried to get them to pull over so we could 'chat'.

Apparently, I obey the law because I usually choose to. I listen to my inner voice, and today it was screaming at me to clean up the gene pool.

Hey I was driving on 97th Street, and some idiot did just that to me. I tried to lead him to the nearest ploice station, but he's probably familiar with the area, and backed off.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'd ideally like to see shariah recognised in law so that I can go through a legal system appropriate to my needs and wishes.

That second bit is easy- make it an option within the legal system to go before Islamic judges in both criminal and civil courts. In this way non-Muslims do not have shariah imposed upon them and Muslims have the option of either legal system. I should have added to my original post that I believe there should be a parallel shariah court system to the normal UK one.

Absolutely not.
You don't get an option of what legal system you want to run by, and all people SHOULD be treated equally under the law.

 

[HiddenHijabi]

Absolutely not.
You don't get an option of what legal system you want to run by, and all people SHOULD be treated equally under the law.

If I choose under current UK law to enter the shariah system of my own free will, why should I be prevented from doing so?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

If I choose under current UK law to enter the shariah system of my own free will, why should I be prevented from doing so?

I'm not a UK resident, so I might get something wrong here, but...

Under current UK law, shariah does not have legal recognition. It's more like a co-op. As you said, if you were getting a divorce, you still need to process it through the civil systems. So, in simple terms, whatever you do under the shariah system, you are still answerable to the actual UK legal system.

I'm not sure if that was what you meant by your question, or whether you were going further, and saying in the future you should be able to be answerable only to the shariah system if you choose to be. If you meant that, then we have a significant different of opinion, and I'd be only too happy to debate it...but this is a discussion thread, so I'll leave it there for now.

 

[Me Myself]

I'm not a UK resident, so I might get something wrong here, but...

Under current UK law, shariah does not have legal recognition. It's more like a co-op. As you said, if you were getting a divorce, you still need to process it through the civil systems. So, in simple terms, whatever you do under the shariah system, you are still answerable to the actual UK legal system.

I'm not sure if that was what you meant by your question, or whether you were going further, and saying in the future you should be able to be answerable only to the shariah system if you choose to be. If you meant that, then we have a significant different of opinion, and I'd be only too happy to debate it...but this is a discussion thread, so I'll leave it there for now.

I dont think he is talking about recognition of the state as a law.

I tthink he is merely saying it is a law in Islam (or at least to him it is a law iislam) and he is free to abide by e laws of his religion if he so chooses. Which in itself is completely true.

I dont think (but might have read wrong) he is asking any change in the legality of the country per se?

 

[HiddenHijabi]

I dont think he is talking about recognition of the state as a law.

I tthink he is merely saying it is a law in Islam (or at least to him it is a law iislam) and he is free to abide by e laws of his religion if he so chooses. Which in itself is completely true.

I dont think (but might have read wrong) he is asking any change in the legality of the country per se?

I'm a girl...

Having a legally recognized and legally protected sharia system wouldn't change anything for those who wish to use the standard legal system. What I'm proposing is that where a Muslim wishes to have a legal issue dealt with according to shariah law, they should be able to do so, without the need for alternate civil proceedings also. That would not be altering the current legal system nor would it infringe on non-Muslims' rights.

 

[Me Myself]

I'm a girl...

Having a legally recognized and legally protected sharia system wouldn't change anything for those who wish to use the standard legal system. What I'm proposing is that where a Muslim wishes to have a legal issue dealt with according to shariah law, they should be able to do so, without the need for alternate civil proceedings also. That would not be altering the current legal system nor would it infringe on non-Muslims' rights.

Sorry for that.

I am not understanding your proposal, maybe I d understand it better with an example.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm a girl...

Having a legally recognized and legally protected sharia system wouldn't change anything for those who wish to use the standard legal system. What I'm proposing is that where a Muslim wishes to have a legal issue dealt with according to shariah law, they should be able to do so, without the need for alternate civil proceedings also. That would not be altering the current legal system nor would it infringe on non-Muslims' rights.

In that case, I am 100% against that as a concept. And it has nothing to do with being against shariah, or anti-Islamic. I would be of the same opinion for any division in the legal system.

 

[HiddenHijabi]

Sorry for that.

I am not understanding your proposal, maybe I d understand it better with an example.

OK, an example.

Let's say I wanted to get a divorce and I also wished to settle issues to do with children's access, and child support. At present, I could go to the shariah court and have it heard there, but even if I agree to the decision made by the court, it is not legally binding and so my former husband is not legally obliged to honour it, nor would I be able to get further legal assistance because under UK law, such decisions aren't legally binding, even though we've both agreed to the decision. Under my system, the sharia decision would have its own legal binding, granting me legal protection and ensuring it is carried through.

I should add that I take back my statements about wishing for criminal shariah courts.

 

[HiddenHijabi]

In that case, I am 100% against that as a concept. And it has nothing to do with being against shariah, or anti-Islamic. I would be of the same opinion for any division in the legal system.

It is not a division. Much of shariah law actually agrees with principles set down in British law, and so would not be in conflict.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It is not a division. Much of shariah law actually agrees with principles set down in British law, and so would not be in conflict.

If it's not in conflict, then it's not required.

 

[Me Myself]

OK, an example.

Let's say I wanted to get a divorce and I also wished to settle issues to do with children's access, and child support. At present, I could go to the shariah court and have it heard there, but even if I agree to the decision made by the court, it is not legally binding and so my former husband is not legally obliged to honour it, nor would I be able to get further legal assistance because under UK law, such decisions aren't legally binding, even though we've both agreed to the decision. Under my system, the sharia decision would have its own legal binding, granting me legal protection and ensuring it is carried through.

I should add that I take back my statements about wishing for criminal shariah courts.

Did your husband accept such laws? So you do are asking special laws for muslims being upholded by the state?

 

[Pagan_Patriot]

One of my favorite radio hosts, Dennis Prager once said that the most important thing in life is not money, love, or happiness, but values. If people have values, they won't do bad things. I think we are at a point in time where we should all know right from wrong, but unfortunately, some kids grow up and are taught to hate, and so they go out and commit crimes and hurt people.

As for Sharia Law, I don't believe it has a place in western society. All we have to do is look at the countries who do have it(Saudi Arabia/Iran) and see how people are treated in those countries.

 

[MattersOfTheHeart]

the most important thing in life is not money, love, or happiness, but values. If people have values, they won't do bad things.

This assumes WAAAAAAYYYY to much about how people even generally define values.
Shoot, you can't even get hardly two people on a religious forum to agree on what "love" is.

 

[HiddenHijabi]

As for Sharia Law, I don't believe it has a place in western society. All we have to do is look at the countries who do have it(Saudi Arabia/Iran) and see how people are treated in those countries.

Not this argument again!

Just because a country calls itself Islamic, doesn't mean it's a good example of Islam. KSA is a prime example, as its form of Islam, Wahabbism, has often been criticized as being overly severe or in many cases outright un-Islamic. This is a criticism that has been made by not just non-Muslims but Muslims themselves, including some Saudi scholars and people.

Here's an article from an Islamic newspaper on the issue: Post-Wahhabism In Saudi Arabia?

It might surprise you to know that there were, at a time, Jews and Christians living in what is now Saudi Arabia, and there existed a community of Jews at Najran until around 1940. Similarly there were Christian communities in Najran and in other communities, including some groups whose history dates back to pre-Islamic times. The Prophet SAW was known to be friendly towards these two religious groups and made peace treaties with those communities willing to do so, including groups which lived in Medina.

 

[Pagan_Patriot]

This assumes WAAAAAAYYYY to much about how people even generally define values.
Shoot, you can't even get hardly two people on a religious forum to agree on what "love" is.

Well it's a personal thing. Some things make people happy, and those same things don't make other people happy. It depends on how you see happiness.

 

[Pagan_Patriot]

Not this argument again!

Just because a country calls itself Islamic, doesn't mean it's a good example of Islam. KSA is a prime example, as its form of Islam, Wahabbism, has often been criticized as being overly severe or in many cases outright un-Islamic. This is a criticism that has been made by not just non-Muslims but Muslims themselves, including some Saudi scholars and people.

Here's an article from an Islamic newspaper on the issue: Post-Wahhabism In Saudi Arabia?

It might surprise you to know that there were, at a time, Jews and Christians living in what is now Saudi Arabia, and there existed a community of Jews at Najran until around 1940. Similarly there were Christian communities in Najran and in other communities, including some groups whose history dates back to pre-Islamic times. The Prophet SAW was known to be friendly towards these two religious groups and made peace treaties with those communities willing to do so, including groups which lived in Medina.

Well why can't the sunnis and shias find peace between each other now?