• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Having read both the Qur'an and the Bible several times from cover to cover, a Qur'anic legal system would come out as the better one. Shari'ah law is definitely not based solely on the Qur'an, but also towards several hadiths, of which many are horribly medieval, negatively biased, intolerant, and ahistorical.

Of course, following a Qur'an that reflected modern exegesis and understanding is also necessary. Traditional verses that have originally said about 'cutting limbs' as punishment have now been readressed and at least one Quranic translation, as "cutting off one's resources."
 

BruceDLimber

Well-Known Member
Who chooses the ones who are candidates?

There ARE no "candidates!" (Remember I said "no nominations" and "no campaigning.")

There is simply the membership list, and each person votes for those members he or she feels are best qualified to serve.

Peace, :)

Bruce
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
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
Wait - so are you suggesting a similar system for secular governments?

If not, I don't see how the way Baha'is manage their own internal affairs is really relevant to this thread.
 

Photonic

Ad astra!


There ARE no "candidates!" (Remember I said "no nominations" and "no campaigning.")

There is simply the membership list, and each person votes for those members he or she feels are best qualified to serve.

Peace, :)

Bruce

Sounds fun, but on a national scale it wouldn't be very effective.

Many candidates who would be well qualified might not be known so well, it would end up being local communities voting for someone who's only goal is to know everyone and they would represent the local community.


Basically exactly what we have now. A representative democracy.
 

Photonic

Ad astra!
Wait - so are you suggesting a similar system for secular governments?

If not, I don't see how the way Baha'is manage their own internal affairs is really relevant to this thread.

Actually, the way his system works is very similar to the US Government, minus all the bull.
 

muslim-

Active Member
Sharia law is a very broad phrase. The vast majority of Islamic laws are derived from general "rules". Like "Disallowing harm, and being harmed" "law dharara wall dhiraar". This simple rule would apply to thousands of things.

Another rule "Everything is allowed unless mentioned otherwise"

In economics, based on the above rule, most transactions are allowed, providing that they don't involved usury, or cheating etc.

The rest would be marriage/family law (applied to Muslims, under Islamic law, Christians for instance would have their own marriage laws) , inheritance laws, and criminal laws.

Either way, both Christian laws (in the Bible) and Islamic ones, would have to be codified. Otherwise it would just create a mess and give absolute authorities to individuals.
 

Awoon

Well-Known Member
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?


The U.S. saved yer as...
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
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?

Fortunately in the US we promote a separation of church and state. If anything it'd probably be best to encourage other countries to do the same.

As far as which would make the better basis, I think both were developed in slightly more barbaric times. I don't think it a good idea to use either as a basis. Either way it's accepting one or the other has any authority, which neither may.

Laws should be reasonably, rationally justified. Not based on an assumption of religious authority.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
I think I would be equally terrified to live under either; and would certainly try to get out of there and take all my loved ones.
 

Bismillah

Submit
I don't view either as an adequate foundation for a legal system.
Both have very strong roots in modern law, that is a fact irrespective of opinion.

I know that Shari'ah is the most developed legalistic tradition in the Middle East and that it will be natural for countries, as they disregard totalitarian dictators as they eventually must, to build off this foundation. Whether this will preclude the religious elements of the Shari'ah or not I do not know.

I believe that the Shari'ah is the best legalistic doctrine for Muslims.
 

Otherright

Otherright
The OP is actually right... kind of. You're looking at it wrong. Common law of the 9th century was. It depends on how you frame it, with 9th century common law, or 12th century Roman Law, which in reality had lesser impact than you think, but it just sounds cool when we teach our children that our law is Roman law. When in reality is isn't, its canon law collected in the English Doom Book.

When America declared independence we used common law precedence as a step in decolonizing. This is called Reception stature where we used english common law as far as it was adaptable to our legislation and constitution.

So, its yes and no. Yes it is canon and no it isn't.

But to answer your question, I'd prefer canon over Shari'a. Its less restrictive. Given the choice, I'd take neither, preferring a humanistic, secular law.
 

BruceDLimber

Well-Known Member
Sounds fun, but on a national scale it wouldn't be very effective.

What you overlook is that the idea is to vote only for those whose personal qualifications you can personally vouch for!

The theory thus becomes that those considered most competent by the highest number of people do indeed tend to be the most competent!

Peace, :)

Bruce
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Yes: I'd say nonpartisanship has clear advantages! :)

Peace,

Bruce
There's more to what you're suggesting than non-partisanship. I for one would be opposed to such a system being used for a secular government.

No campaigning? That would interfere with the ability of the electorate inform their vote. It would also create a system where the status quo gets an unfair advantage: if newcomers didn't have the opportunity to introduce themselves to the community in some large way, they would be unknown quantities.

And not being able to refuse a nomination or election (except for "hardship")? That's just nuts, IMO. I only want people governing me who are committed to the job. I'm not interested in any politician who isn't interested in serving, and I think polluting the election race with these sorts of candidates does no good at all.

This sort of system might work fine in an individual congregation or a smallish religious community where you actually do know everyone, but my town has more than 100,000 people. Even for a municipal election, if my ballot listed every single person whose friends and neighbours thought would make a good mayor, it'd be as long as my arm... and if nobody campaigned, I probably wouldn't know more than one or two names on the list.

And on top of it, my municipal government is non-partisan anyhow. You don't need all this extra stuff to make a non-partisan government happen.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
What you overlook is that the idea is to vote only for those whose personal qualifications you can personally vouch for!

The theory thus becomes that those considered most competent by the highest number of people do indeed tend to be the most competent!

Peace, :)

Bruce
So there's no immigration in your country? Hundreds of capable, talented people arrive in my area every day, but I don't know any of them yet. And if they can't tell me about themselves in some sort of systematic way (i.e. campaign), I'll never know them.
 

BruceDLimber

Well-Known Member
No campaigning? That would interfere with the ability of the electorate inform their vote. It would also create a system where the status quo gets an unfair advantage....

On the contrary, we find it ideal! It's nominations and campaigning that create a lot of the partisan problems that our system avoids!

And as I've already said, the idea is to vote for those with whom you're famliar, which of course adds emphasis to the idea of getting acquainted with the people in question.

And not being able to refuse a nomination or election (except for "hardship")? That's just nuts, IMO. I only want people governing me who are committed to the job.

Once again, you vote for those you consider dedicated to the task at hand, so this really isn't a problem.

And indeed, anyone trying to "run for office" is probably just guaranteeing that he or she won't be elected specifically because of that attempt!

Peace, :)

Bruce
 

BruceDLimber

Well-Known Member
So there's no immigration in your country?

Of course there is: LOTS of it!

Hundreds of capable, talented people arrive in my area every day, but I don't know any of them yet. And if they can't tell me about themselves in some sort of systematic way (i.e. campaign), I'll never know them.

Then my point holds: don't vote for someone you aren't famliar with.

Those who arrive and get involved will indeed get noticed. And those who don't probably shouldn't be elected, anyway.

Peace,

Bruce
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
BruceDLimbar,

Another potential problem that I see with your system is that it's purely democratic. Given human nature, sometimes that can be like two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner -- are there protections for minorities in your system from the majority?
 
Top