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

[Notanumber]

 

[Kuzcotopia]

That's a scary piece of Islamaphobia.

I'm not fan of Islam any more than I'm a fan of Christianity, but this implies that every single Muslim is lying to every single non-Muslim in the world, as part of their religious duty.

That is extremely far-fetched, and I'll leave it to an actual Muslim on these boards to share their side of this.

 

[psychoslice]

Should western laws be allowed in Muslim countries ?.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Should western laws be allowed in Muslim countries ?.

okay don't know much however this what is what I heard westerners like in Kazakhstan even guess what white can live freely but Muslims cant. (why?) that's there country?
Which is set up were they invent the opposite in western cultures by trying to in force immigration.
If you want to you could go there, your free and Muslims got it bad. Then they turn the tables and did mass immigration + benefits to into/western places.
So I'm totally against it.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

however anything coming from the world of accented informative things I judge without even saying I need to, or vote because my president said that we were a predominantly a Muslim nation and I did not vote that.
Soo .. I don't have much an opinion other than that of which I do know from others who went there.

 

[YmirGF]

Which Sharia? Whose interpretation of Sharia?


Sadly, I could not vote in the poll as it is not a simple yes/no question as the writer of the OP would seem to think.

 

[arthra]

I believe there can be a balance... between civil and Shariah laws particularly those ordinances relating to marriage matters and divorce and such.. In a free society people should be allowed to practice their own religion. Also in a free society people should be free to leave their religion and if desired choose to practice civil laws. There may be laws in society that require a minimum age for a marriage for instance that should apply as well as required inoculations and other health issues that should apply..but again a balance may be necessary between religious and secular laws.

As far as Muslim countries are concerned as signatories to the UN charter there may be certain rights that are spelled out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that would need to be observed.

See:

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html

 

[psychoslice]

No culture has the right to enforce its beliefs onto another culture, that's why its called culture, you have made your own culture, you have cultivated your own beliefs into a belief or ideology, and other cultures have done the same, yes keep your own culture to yourself.

 

[LuisDantas]

I have come to believe that Islam must end, no ifs, ands or buts about it, so yes, containing Sharia would be a good start.

 

[Laika]

I have come to believe that Islam must end, no ifs, ands or buts about it, so yes, containing Sharia would be a good start.

I think you really need to elaborate on that, as that is potentially an extremely dangerous sentiment.

I don't think you mean "Islam must end" literally in the "final solution" kind of way but there really isnt another way to end Islam "no ifs and or buts about it" without "ending" Muslims. In practice you cannot seperate the belief and the believer and the consequences of a belief like that are just plain dangerous if you want to "end Islam" by "any means neccessary".

If you do mean a "final solution" against Muslims- and I cant really stop you from holding those views- I'd actually be willing to debate you one on one just to change your mind and to get you to really think about Wtf your saying as I think you are alot smarter than that. However, I think for you to hold that position would be really out of character and I've just got the wrong end of the stick here but that is a really simplistic and incendiary statement to begin with.

So...hmmmm?

 

[sun rise]

As a Jew, I react strongly to hatred directed at a group because of who they are or their religion. It's past time for such unAmericanism and discrimination to end.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think you really need to elaborate on that, as that is potentially an extremely dangerous sentiment.

So many things are dangerous. Quite a few are dangerous for not being pursued nearly often nor decisively enough, even.

I don't think you mean "Islam must end" literally in the "final solution" kind of way but there really isnt another way to end Islam "no ifs and or buts about it" without "ending" Muslims.

Islam no more can be expected to survive in the long run than lawful slavery did, for not a few of the same reasons even.

It is by design incompatible with the mutual needs and compromises that a world with today's population and technology levels needs to survive in anything close to a healthy way.

I am of course not advocating violence - if anything, that would be yet another obstacle, and of the most shameful kind - but it is clear to me now that hopes for a long, peaceful survival of Islam are all-out delusional. Islam is what it is. It must be overgrown.

Muslims must of course end. Not by violence at all, but by exposure to the wider world and the duty of mutual responsibility that it presents all of us. From what I gather, that has begun already. There is likely a reason why so many ex-Muslims become atheists instead of, say, Christians or Hindus, and why atheism is so severely repressed in Muslim communities. And far as the evidence indicates, the reason is because Islam is far more of a well-organized, repressive superstition than it has ever been a true religion.

In practice you cannot seperate the belief and the believer and the consequences of a belief like that are just plain dangerous if you want to "end Islam" by "any means neccessary".

I don't know what you are reading into what I say, but the only means acceptable are of course the non-violent ones. Violence is self-defeating by definition.

Nor do I know what you mean by this claim. Of course there is a difference between the belief, which does not particularly deserve nor need protection nor even respect, and the believer, who does. That is true of Islam as it is of any other belief, actually.

If you do mean a "final solution" against Muslims- and I cant really stop you from holding those views- I'd actually be willing to debate you one on one just to change your mind and to get you to really think about Wtf your saying as I think you are alot smarter than that. However, I think for you to hold that position would be really out of character and I've just got the wrong end of the stick here but that is a really simplistic and incendiary statement to begin with.

So...hmmmm?

I guess I am incendiary at this point. I am truly sick and tired of the abuses of Christianity, let alone of Islam. I find myself short of reasons to be quiet or soft any longer when it comes to the badly needed challenge of undefensable beliefs.

Islam is a tribal belief. One that literally forbids itself from being anything better. A self-imposed dead end. An obstacle to both social contracts on a global scale and constructive religious practice. A glorified bet on the idea of a creator God that supposedly overrides all other concerns and values. A cult of fear as the answer to largely self-taught existential fears.

It must end because the alternative is to keep carrying its weight for no good reason.

Part of it is seeing Sharia for what it is: theocracy-justified law. Which is to say, abusing god-beliefs way beyond any reasonable parameter. It is not reasonable, it can't be talked with, it makes a point of not being answerable to reason nor to enlightment.

We all deserve better. Every single human being does.

 

[psychoslice]

Anything that goes against our freedom is poison, no matter where the poison comes from.

 

[Laika]

So many things are dangerous. Quite a few are dangerous for not being pursued nearly often nor decisively enough, even.


Islam no more can be expected to survive in the long run than lawful slavery did, for not a few of the same reasons even.

It is by design incompatible with the mutual needs and compromises that a world with today's population and technology levels needs to survive in anything close to a healthy way.

I am of course not advocating violence - if anything, that would be yet another obstacle, and of the most shameful kind - but it is clear to me now that hopes for a long, peaceful survival of Islam are all-out delusional. Islam is what it is. It must be overgrown.

Muslims must of course end. Not by violence at all, but by exposure to the wider world and the duty of mutual responsibility that it presents all of us. From what I gather, that has begun already. There is likely a reason why so many ex-Muslims become atheists instead of, say, Christians or Hindus, and why atheism is so severely repressed in Muslim communities. And far as the evidence indicates, the reason is because Islam is far more of a well-organized, repressive superstition than it has ever been a true religion.


I don't know what you are reading into what I say, but the only means acceptable are of course the non-violent ones. Violence is self-defeating by definition.

Nor do I know what you mean by this claim. Of course there is a difference between the belief, which does not particularly deserve nor need protection nor even respect, and the believer, who does. That is true of Islam as it is of any other belief, actually.



I guess I am incendiary at this point. I am truly sick and tired of the abuses of Christianity, let alone of Islam. I find myself short of reasons to be quiet or soft any longer when it comes to the badly needed challenge of undefensable beliefs.

Islam is a tribal belief. One that literally forbids itself from being anything better. A self-imposed dead end. An obstacle to both social contracts on a global scale and constructive religious practice. A glorified bet on the idea of a creator God that supposedly overrides all other concerns and values. A cult of fear as the answer to largely self-taught existential fears.

It must end because the alternative is to keep carrying its weight for no good reason.

Part of it is seeing Sharia for what it is: theocracy-justified law. Which is to say, abusing god-beliefs way beyond any reasonable parameter. It is not reasonable, it can't be talked with, it makes a point of not being answerable to reason nor to enlightment.

We all deserve better. Every single human being does.

Thanks for your reply luis. I think that there is a clear contradiction in your argument, which is why I feel I have to call it out. You say on the one hand:

"Muslims must of course end. Not by violence at all, but by exposure to the wider world and the duty of moral responsibility it presents all of us."

And also say:

"the only means acceptable are non-vilent ones. Violence is by definition self-defeating."

...but You also finish with:

"[Islam] is not reasonable, it cant be talked with, it makes a point of not being answerable to reason or enlightenment."

The latter statement rules out the possibility of a non-violent way to "end Islam" as muslims believe in a "well-organised, repressive superstitition" more "than it has ever been a true religion".

You cannot say Islam is immune to reason and yet simultaneously say that Muslims will voluntarily change their beliefs without the necessity of violence without contradicting yourself. The resolution of that contradiction includes the possibility of a violent attack on all Muslims to "end Islam"- something you clearly do not intend.

I would be failing to pass on the lessons of history of communist attempts to liquidate religion if I didn't call this out. Whilst it is permissable for individuals to hold anti-islamic views (and even rational to do so), the current climate even on this forum is that this is not an isolated sentiment. When it then goes beyond mere criticism to wanting to end an entire religion, it crosses a threshold and makes more extreme views acceptable. Its just the "social proof" of how such views as validated in groups. Whatever your intentions (and no doubt the satisfaction derived from venting your frustration on this) there may well be others who would contemplate using unethical means to achieve the same ends as you have in mind. The only difference is one of means, not of ends. Thats it.

So I just want to show you the road your heading on so you have an option to reconsider and get off. If it really has got this bad its better to discuss a muslim genocide publicly as an exorcism of the sentiments behind it rather than let it fester. Good intentions won't be enough to justify what is the logical but absurd conclusion of this train of thought.

 

[YmirGF]

So many things are dangerous. Quite a few are dangerous for not being pursued nearly often nor decisively enough, even.


Islam no more can be expected to survive in the long run than lawful slavery did, for not a few of the same reasons even.

It is by design incompatible with the mutual needs and compromises that a world with today's population and technology levels needs to survive in anything close to a healthy way.

I am of course not advocating violence - if anything, that would be yet another obstacle, and of the most shameful kind - but it is clear to me now that hopes for a long, peaceful survival of Islam are all-out delusional. Islam is what it is. It must be overgrown.

Muslims must of course end. Not by violence at all, but by exposure to the wider world and the duty of mutual responsibility that it presents all of us. From what I gather, that has begun already. There is likely a reason why so many ex-Muslims become atheists instead of, say, Christians or Hindus, and why atheism is so severely repressed in Muslim communities. And far as the evidence indicates, the reason is because Islam is far more of a well-organized, repressive superstition than it has ever been a true religion.


I don't know what you are reading into what I say, but the only means acceptable are of course the non-violent ones. Violence is self-defeating by definition.

Nor do I know what you mean by this claim. Of course there is a difference between the belief, which does not particularly deserve nor need protection nor even respect, and the believer, who does. That is true of Islam as it is of any other belief, actually.



I guess I am incendiary at this point. I am truly sick and tired of the abuses of Christianity, let alone of Islam. I find myself short of reasons to be quiet or soft any longer when it comes to the badly needed challenge of undefensable beliefs.

Islam is a tribal belief. One that literally forbids itself from being anything better. A self-imposed dead end. An obstacle to both social contracts on a global scale and constructive religious practice. A glorified bet on the idea of a creator God that supposedly overrides all other concerns and values. A cult of fear as the answer to largely self-taught existential fears.

It must end because the alternative is to keep carrying its weight for no good reason.

Part of it is seeing Sharia for what it is: theocracy-justified law. Which is to say, abusing god-beliefs way beyond any reasonable parameter. It is not reasonable, it can't be talked with, it makes a point of not being answerable to reason nor to enlightment.

We all deserve better. Every single human being does.

My goodness, Luis. You have come a long way with this. I applaud your standpoint. My own guess is that Islam will simply collapse given that it is a frail house of cards to begin with. My hope is that modernity itself will pry Muslims loose from the cold comfort of their outdated beliefs.

 

[YmirGF]

You cannot say Islam is immune to reason and yet simultaneously say that Muslims will voluntarily change their beliefs without the necessity of violence without contradicting yourself. The resolution of that contradiction includes the possibility of a violent attack on all Muslims to "end Islam"- something you clearly do not intend.

In my scenario, external pressure will simply be the onward march of modernity as it is somewhat unstoppable at this stage. I foresee many Muslims dropping their religion voluntarily simply due to the impossibility of Islam to adapt to unexpected future conditions/discoveries or major scientific breakthroughs. Due to the strict structure within Muslim societies this could well have violent reactions as the old ways will not go quietly.

I would be failing to pass on the lessons of history of communist attempts to liquidate religion if I didn't call this out. Whilst it is permissable for individuals to hold anti-islamic views (and even rational to do so), the current climate even on this forum is that this is not an isolated sentiment. When it then goes beyond mere criticism to wanting to end an entire religion, it crosses a threshold and makes more extreme views acceptable. Its just the "social proof" of how such views as validated in groups. Whatever your intentions (and no doubt the satisfaction derived from venting your frustration on this) there may well be others who would contemplate using unethical means to achieve the same ends as you have in mind. The only difference is one of means, not of ends. Thats it.

I can imagine giving humanitarian aid to those who are severely persecuted but it will be very difficult to stay out of this possible conflict entirely as the Muslim world dissolves into a trans-country quasi civil war. Eventually though, we will have to pick a side. I rather expect that it will not be on the side of the fanatics.

 

[Laika]

In my scenario, external pressure will simply be the onward march of modernity as it is somewhat unstoppable at this stage. I foresee many Muslims dropping their religion voluntarily simply due to the impossibility of Islam to adapt to unexpected future conditions/discoveries or major scientific breakthroughs. Due to the strict structure within Muslim societies this could well have violent reactions as the old ways will not go quietly.

I can imagine giving humanitarian aid to those who are severely persecuted but it will be very difficult to stay out of this possible conflict entirely as the Muslim world dissolves into a trans-country quasi civil war. Eventually though, we will have to pick a side. I rather expect that it will not be on the side of the fanatics.

Ok- lets play this scenario through.

The middle east descends into a sectarian civil war over Islam say between sunni and shia. Oil prices spike and now the west has to become involved to secure its oil supplies. America puts "boots on the ground" in the third Iraq war and every muslims goes, "for the love of allah! not again! Kill the infidel!"

China and Russia need the oil too so that escalates international tensions. Finally Isreal and Iran have a good old fashioned religious war using nuclear weapons because religious hatred is more important than survival.

So as the west starts to collapse due to oil shortages, and as we watch the rising mushroom clouds over the middle east on high definition TVs and the sky goes dark as the mecca, medina and jurusalem burn In homes accross America, family members turn to each other and say: "This sucks. Change the channel!" Then finnally people wake up as it "gets real" and they realise saying "we did it for freedom" enough times is not the magical incantantion that will make everything better.

My tolerance of the "I hate islam but I'm not part of the problem" group is getting low, but is that the sort of future you have in mind?

 

[psychoslice]

I just wish people would keep their stinking noses out of other peoples business, whatever law you want, then keep it to your self, stuff your own life up without stuffing up others life.

 

[YmirGF]

Ok- lets play this scenario through.

The middle east descends into a sectarian civil war over Islam say between sunni and shia. Oil prices spike and now the west has to become involved to secure its oil supplies. America puts "boots on the ground" in the third Iraq war and every muslims goes, "for the love of allah! not again! Kill the infidel!"

China and Russia need the oil too so that escalates international tensions. Finally Isreal and Iran have a good old fashioned religious war using nuclear weapons because religious hatred is more important than survival.

So as the west starts to collapse due to oil shortages, and as we watch the rising mushroom clouds over the middle east on high definition TVs and the sky goes dark as the mecca, medina and jurusalem burn In homes accross America, family members turn to each other and say: "This sucks. Change the channel!" Then finnally people wake up as it "gets real" and they realise saying "we did it for freedom" enough times is not the magical incantantion that will make everything better.

My tolerance of the "I hate islam but I'm not part of the problem" group is getting low, but is that the sort of future you have in mind?

Holy straw-man, Batman! Hysteria much?

What if my scenario involves the discovery of a cheap renewable alternative to fossil fuels that allows us to radically reduce our oil imports? That is a very real possibility and likely in the not too distant future.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Thanks for your reply luis. I think that there is a clear contradiction in your argument, which is why I feel I have to call it out. You say on the one hand:

"Muslims must of course end. Not by violence at all, but by exposure to the wider world and the duty of moral responsibility it presents all of us."

And also say:

"the only means acceptable are non-vilent ones. Violence is by definition self-defeating."

...but You also finish with:

"[Islam] is not reasonable, it cant be talked with, it makes a point of not being answerable to reason or enlightenment."

Luis was actually referring specifically to Sharia law in this sentence. Here's the same sentence accompanied by the ones preceding it.

Part of it is seeing Sharia for what it is: theocracy-justified law. Which is to say, abusing god-beliefs way beyond any reasonable parameter. It is not reasonable, it can't be talked with, it makes a point of not being answerable to reason nor to enlightment.

See? Sharia law.

You cannot say Islam is immune to reason and yet simultaneously say that Muslims will voluntarily change their beliefs without the necessity of violence without contradicting yourself. The resolution of that contradiction includes the possibility of a violent attack on all Muslims to "end Islam"- something you clearly do not intend.

Yes he can because Muslims =/= Islam. Islam cannot change but Muslims can; that is Luis' point. Take for instance the likes of Maajid Nawaz, Maryam Namazie and others. Some like Maryam changed by renouncing Islam, others like Maajid have changed by rejecting extremism, adopting a far more rational approach to religious devotion and are working to reform Islam from the inside. While I believe Maajid's efforts to be ultimately futile, that doesn't reduce the nobility of his intent nor does it show that Muslims = Islam.