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

[LuisDantas]

I wish you deal with Muslims like Muslims deal with non-Muslim as Dhimmi

I almost believe you do.

I refuse to.

 

[LuisDantas]

mmmm the atheist free man can discuss anything anything but when it comes to Judaism or Israel and lately armies they swallow their tongue

I was wondering when you would remember to find a distraction.

Sorry, that won't work either.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is a kind of atheist are working as Fifth column in Islam. They pertain Muslims and use this as a cover to adopt any bad talk on Islam

You are actually blaming atheists for daring to exist and want some freedom. It takes some nerve for calling them "fifth column".

 

[Limo]

I was wondering when you would remember to find a distraction.

Sorry, that won't work either.

Tell me what I've avoided to answer just highlight it

By the way, I've answered many questions that are not in the subject


Can you answer just one ?

 

[YmirGF]

You are actually blaming atheists for daring to exist and want some freedom. It takes some nerve for calling them "fifth column".

Sound like paranoia to me. That said, given that atheists cannot come "out of the closet" in a Muslim majority country and freely express their thoughts they have no choice but pretend to be good Muslims to save themselves from derision, at best, to personal injury, imprisonment and even death - in the extreme cases. Muslim society has no one to blame for this but themselves due to their strident opinions about apostates.

 

[YmirGF]

mmmm the atheist free man can discuss anything anything but when it comes to Judaism or Israel and lately armies they swallow their tongue

Speak, speak my friend , don't afraid .... you're in a free country...

Speak louder, Your "Modern Standards" protect you as per the constitution, law, traditions, civil organizations, human rights ,,,,

You might speak but not telling the truth or speak illogically or speak against your "Modern Standards"

I am happy to talk about Judaism.
I am happy to talk about Israel, of which, I am a firm supporter. You could call me a non-Jewish Zionist.
I am happy to talk about armies. Is the topic off limits or something?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Islamic Law is live it's not ancient.
What if we like it ??? by voting and election ?



According to your values, it's democracy .... right ???

It is most definitely ancient - Islamic law is informed by books written over a thousand years ago by desert-dwelling people who wouldn't encounter advanced scientific knowledge until they conquered the Byzantine and Sassanid empires. Indeed, one Abbasid caliph said of the Persians: "The Persians ruled for a thousand years and did not need us Arabs even for a day. We have been ruling them for one or two centuries and cannot do without them for an hour." - that is how far in advance the Persians were to their conquerors.

A truly civilised society will respect the will of the majority but will also

1. promote equality before the law
2. enshrine the rights of minorities to live their lives free of persecution or discrimination.

Islamic law does not do this because it does not recognise the rights of polytheists to worship at all, it subjects men & women to differing legal statuses in the realms of things like divorce (it is far far easier for a man to divorce a woman than it is for a woman to divorce a man), dhimmis (i.e. Christians, Jews and maybe Zoroastrians) are extorted by the state in order to continue practising their faith - they have to pay an extra tax or risk having their religious liberties trampled on, it advocates violence towards ex-Muslims and does not recognise the rights of atheists whether they are ex-Muslims or not.

These are your "Modern Standards" we take what is suitable for us. Keep it running in Paris, New yourk and London and any other place wherever people welcome it.

This 'live and let live' thing is entirely self-serving on your part. If Islam isn't held in check it will spread like a cancer until all are forced to live under its remit - that's the end goal is it not?

Your "Modern Standards" are the barbarian one not Islamic Law.

We base our laws on rational inquiry, on reasoned arguments and through examining whether or not they cause harm and to whom this harm does or does not apply. We change laws when we find one does not adequately protect the rights of others, or actively infringes upon them. Islamic law is rigid and does not take into account the needs of those subject to it - it is the word of God and to question or challenge it is inexcusable. You base your laws on books written over a thousand years ago by ignorant desert-dwelling fanatics who thought that semen came from between the ribs and the backbone and that the Sun literally set in a pool of muddy water.

Resistance to change - any change - isn't necessarily a sign of civilisation - it's a sign of stagnation; of rot. It speaks to an intellectual malaise in a society that doesn't want to change its laws to benefit minorities.

Look to social diseases up there in your streets and you'll discover which standards are the barbarian ones

What social diseases did you have in mind? I can't wait to hear this.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Sound like paranoia to me. That said, given that atheists cannot come "out of the closet" in a Muslim majority country and freely express their thoughts they have no choice but pretend to be good Muslims to save themselves from derision, at best, to personal injury, imprisonment and even death - in the extreme cases. Muslim society has no one to blame for this but themselves due to their strident opinions about apostates.

No doubt they'll find a way to blame the West somehow...

 

[YmirGF]

No doubt they'll find a way to blame the West somehow...

Well, it can't be the fault of the fastestestest growing religion on the face of the planet now... DUH!

 

[Limo]

It is most definitely ancient - Islamic law is informed by books written over a thousand years ago by desert-dwelling people who wouldn't encounter advanced scientific knowledge until they conquered the Byzantine and Sassanid empires. Indeed, one Abbasid caliph said of the Persians: "The Persians ruled for a thousand years and did not need us Arabs even for a day. We have been ruling them for one or two centuries and cannot do without them for an hour." - that is how far in advance the Persians were to their conquerors.

A truly civilised society will respect the will of the majority but will also

1. promote equality before the law
2. enshrine the rights of minorities to live their lives free of persecution or discrimination.

Islamic law does not do this because it does not recognise the rights of polytheists to worship at all, it subjects men & women to differing legal statuses in the realms of things like divorce (it is far far easier for a man to divorce a woman than it is for a woman to divorce a man), dhimmis (i.e. Christians, Jews and maybe Zoroastrians) are extorted by the state in order to continue practising their faith - they have to pay an extra tax or risk having their religious liberties trampled on, it advocates violence towards ex-Muslims and does not recognise the rights of atheists whether they are ex-Muslims or not.




This 'live and let live' thing is entirely self-serving on your part. If Islam isn't held in check it will spread like a cancer until all are forced to live under its remit - that's the end goal is it not?




We base our laws on rational inquiry, on reasoned arguments and through examining whether or not they cause harm and to whom this harm does or does not apply. We change laws when we find one does not adequately protect the rights of others, or actively infringes upon them. Islamic law is rigid and does not take into account the needs of those subject to it - it is the word of God and to question or challenge it is inexcusable. You base your laws on books written over a thousand years ago by ignorant desert-dwelling fanatics who thought that semen came from between the ribs and the backbone and that the Sun literally set in a pool of muddy water.

Resistance to change - any change - isn't necessarily a sign of civilisation - it's a sign of stagnation; of rot. It speaks to an intellectual malaise in a society that doesn't want to change its laws to benefit minorities.



What social diseases did you have in mind? I can't wait to hear this.

See you want to enforce tutelage/ guardianship on our right of practicing democracy ....

Do you know who said "I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!" ?
Do a little search on internet.....One of the great people who started your "Modern Standards"

I'd allow atheists to rule the Muslims country if they can succeed in elections.
Actully they do without elections, they do with your suppport.

But look what do you've said

Where your "Modern Standards " values that takes care of minorities when majority in Switzerland decided that Mosques shouldn't have minarates while any other religions needs will get it ??

And France voted for banning scarf in schools ?

And many Muslims are kicked off from flights (especially in US) because they wear something or said a single Islamic word or somebody disliked their shape ?

Your "Modern Standards" are for everyone except for Muslims.
Even Sikhi can keep his hat and doesn't have to take it off.

If you know how Jews, Christians, and any non-Muslim minorities were living under Islamic law, you call for Sharia.
By the way there were some Islamic states under Sharia Law but majority were non-Muslims and they kept their religion(s) for hundreds of years, India is an example.

Jews used to run away from Europe in middle era and till beginning of 20th history (last time was from Russia)....
Where did they find the best refugee ??

They found the refugee and living in peace only in Islamic states under Sharia Law as Dhimmi.

They run away from Ghettos in Paris and excellent cities all over Europe to live freeling among people all over the counties safe and waelthyunder Sharia Law in Islamic countries


Open your other eye, look to the whole truth

 

[icehorse]

It's threads like this that remind me just how scary the situation is.

 

[LuisDantas]

Tell me what I've avoided to answer just highlight it

By the way, I've answered many questions that are not in the subject

Indeed. To your credit, you were fairly clear in your answers as well.

Can you answer just one ?

Sure, which is it?

 

[LuisDantas]

It's threads like this that remind me just how scary the situation is.

You tell me!

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I assure you other than Saudi Arabia no other country apply the Islamic Law against apostates or atheists
I understand that they've another type of social pressure

I'll direct you to this post I made elsewhere addressing the same subject:

So rare that just under half of all Muslim-majority countries (23 out of 49) consider apostasy to be a criminal offence. With Turkey rapidly becoming Islamised by Erdogan, how long will it be before that becomes 24 out of 49?

There are many people now expose their apostates or atheism
In Egypt for example these people are most welcomed by government and they control the media

I'm going to call 'bull****' because Egypt is one of the 23 Muslim-majority countries where apostasy is a crime.

In Lebanon, Algeria, Tunis, and Egypt they work in public they've their own committees and gatherings

I'll be surprised if that's true. Even if a Muslim country doesn't outlaw apostasy completely there is still an enormous social stigma that comes with leaving Islam - particularly from more conservative Muslims. That'll be especially true of Lebanon where the terrorist group Hezbollah has influence over the government.

There is a kind of atheist are working as Fifth column in Islam. They pertain Muslims and use this as a cover to adopt any bad talk on Islam

You know, if Muslims around the world weren't constantly for ex-Muslims to be killed for 'insulting their religion' (whatever that means since religions don't have feelings) or even simply for being ex-Muslim, this wouldn't be a thing. If Muslims didn't descend into hysterics when a family member apostatised this wouldn't be a thing. If ex-Muslims didn't need to live in fear that they'd be murdered by their own family members this wouldn't be a thing. If this is a problem that afflicts Muslim communities then you have only yourselves to blame. Ex-Muslims wouldn't need to keep pretending to be Muslims if Muslims didn't make it a necessity. Naturally, I anticipate you'll find some way to pin this on the West. Muslims always do.

Criticizing Islam is normal. It's started from day 1 and will continue till last day.
We respond to allegations. There are hundreds and may be thousands of books that discusses all kinds of religions and philosophies appeared in the history.

Islamic law is clear, it's like Torah law.

Criticising Islam isn't normal because:

1. Doing so is likely to get you killed in some countries because some Muslims are so breath-takingly stupid that they can't differentiate between their religion & their sentiments regarding their religion and readily conflate the two i.e. 'You have insulted Islam!'.
2. Muslims are even now engaging in a global campaign to silence criticism of, and dissent against, Islam through the U.N. No other religious group is engaged in such a marked campaign of worldwide suppression of free speech.
3. No other religion (as far as I'm aware) currently calls for the death of non-believers because they offend religious sensibilities i.e. fatwas against non-Muslims like Salman Rushdie.

 

[Shad]

Do you know who said "I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!" ?

Interesting that you mention a quote linked to a man that persecuted, arrested and had people burned at the stake for not believing as he did... Ironic that he died for not believing as other people did when the state no longer followed his views.

 

[Akivah]

This is an interfaith problem
X-muslim atheists are cowards they're not brave to publish their belief.

When someone pertains Judaism and say Torah and Talmud are the source and driver for all killing done by Jews especially in Palestine?

Nope. Some of the most vehement anti-Semites are Jews.

Will you consider him a jewel?

I'm presuming, you meant Jew instead of jewel. If so, then someone's beliefs doesn't change their parentage. A born Jew is always a Jew, although they can easily be anti-Judaism or anti-Jewish.

At you'll tell if you're not happy go and select another peacefully relegion. Right?

I don't know what this means.

 

[Akivah]

The point is our standards are not compliant with you. You live your life with whatever values you like and we should do the same.
Pull your hands out of our lands.
Respect other non western culture not only Islamic but other cultures
You see and consider no other values or cultures
You are imposing yours and pushing it all over the world not only in Islamic lands
We don't need it, we've ours

Ah good. Then you agree that sharia law should be banned from Western countries.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

See you want to enforce tutelage/ guardianship on our right of practicing democracy ....

Do you know who said "I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!" ?
Do a little search on internet.....One of the great people who started your "Modern Standards"

It's extremely ironic that what you just quote-mined from is part of a conversation between Thomas More and his family. And it's from a film. In this conversation More speaks in support of equality before the law because if the law is not applied equally to all, even the Devil himself, it becomes meaningless. Let's look at the whole conversation ("More" refers to Thomas):

Alice More: Arrest him!
More: Why, what has he done?
Margaret More: He's bad!
More: There is no law against that.
Will Roper: There is! God's law!
More: Then God can arrest him.
Alice: While you talk, he's gone!
More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast– man's laws, not God's– and if you cut them down—and you're just the man to do it—do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.

I'd allow atheists to rule the Muslims country if they can succeed in elections.
Actully they do without elections, they do with your suppport.

Really? Where exactly?

But look what do you've said

Where your "Modern Standards " values that takes care of minorities when majority in Switzerland decided that Mosques shouldn't have minarates while any other religions needs will get it ??

Other religious structures don't need minarets. Heck, mosques don't need minarets and they certainly don't need muezzin to issue the call to prayer. Is it too much to hope Muslims will set their own alarms instead of waking up half the city?

And France voted for banning scarf in schools ?

Which applies to people of all religions including Muslims ultra-Orthodox Jews, Orthodox Christians etc whose women might feel inclined to cover their heads. The only reason it feels like discrimination is because a) Muslim girls cover their heads more often than non-Muslim women and; b) you view it as persecution because Muslims aren't allowed to be exempt from the law of the land. A typical sense of entitlement.

And many Muslims are kicked off from flights (especially in US) because they wear something or said a single Islamic word or somebody disliked their shape ?

Such acts are based off of ignorance and are examples of religious discrimination which is illegal.

Your "Modern Standards" are for everyone except for Muslims.
Even Sikhi can keep his hat and doesn't have to take it off.

Not in France they can't, and yes, our "modern standards" are for everyone. They're the laws that see people jailed for attaching bacon rashers to the gates of a mosque. Don't give us this **** about how our laws don't protect Muslims because they do. There's actually a moronic culture going about in the West which viciously silences anyone who criticises Islam. It's essentially an unwritten blasphemy law. Louis Smith is the latest victim with his entire career hanging in the balance because he mocked Islam at a wedding. Mohammed Shafiq, CEO of the Ramadan Foundation issued a rather imperious statement saying "Our faith is not to be mocked, our faith is to be celebrated and I think people will be offended.". Who the **** is he to tell us whether or not we can mock Islam? **** him.

If you know how Jews, Christians, and any non-Muslim minorities were living under Islamic law, you call for Sharia.

Ha ha, no I wouldn't. I see how the Copts in Egypt are treated; how the Zoroastrians in Iran are treated, how Christians in Muslim-majority countries like Uganda & North Sudan are treated. Heck, I see how Muslims are treated under Sharia law and I still think it's reprehensible.

By the way there were some Islamic states under Sharia Law but majority were non-Muslims and they kept their religion(s) for hundreds of years, India is an example.

It's not a very good example because the Indian Hindus only maintained their religion through violent self-defense, armed insurrection etc because their Muslim rulers had a nasty habit of demolishing Hindu shrines & temples to build mosques.

Jews used to run away from Europe in middle era and till beginning of 20th history (last time was from Russia)....
Where did they find the best refugee ??

And since then the trend has reversed; Jews have since fled the Muslim world en masse because Muslims as a group have become so virulently anti-Semitic.

They found the refugee and living in peace only in Islamic states under Sharia Law as Dhimmi.

The fact you can only point to murderous anti-Semitism in Europe in the first half of the 20th Century as being less preferable than living under Sharia law is not exactly a ringing endorsement.

They run away from Ghettos in Paris and excellent cities all over Europe to live freeling among people all over the counties safe and waelthyunder Sharia Law in Islamic countries

Like I said, they don't do that any more. I wonder why that is...

Open your other eye, look to the whole truth

You should take your own advice.

 

[ENTP Logician]

Should western laws be allowed in Muslim countries ?.

Thats up to them.

 

[Limo]

I'm going to call 'bull****' because Egypt is one of the 23 Muslim-majority countries where apostasy is a crime.




I'll be surprised if that's true. Even if a Muslim country doesn't outlaw apostasy completely there is still an enormous social stigma that comes with leaving Islam - particularly from more conservative Muslims. That'll be especially true of Lebanon where the terrorist group Hezbollah has influence over the government.




You know, if Muslims around the world weren't constantly for ex-Muslims to be killed for 'insulting their religion' (whatever that means since religions don't have feelings) or even simply for being ex-Muslim, this wouldn't be a thing. If Muslims didn't descend into hysterics when a family member apostatised this wouldn't be a thing. If ex-Muslims didn't need to live in fear that they'd be murdered by their own family members this wouldn't be a thing. If this is a problem that afflicts Muslim communities then you have only yourselves to blame. Ex-Muslims wouldn't need to keep pretending to be Muslims if Muslims didn't make it a necessity. Naturally, I anticipate you'll find some way to pin this on the West. Muslims always do.




Criticising Islam isn't normal because:

1. Doing so is likely to get you killed in some countries because some Muslims are so breath-takingly stupid that they can't differentiate between their religion & their sentiments regarding their religion and readily conflate the two i.e. 'You have insulted Islam!'.
2. Muslims are even now engaging in a global campaign to silence criticism of, and dissent against, Islam through the U.N. No other religious group is engaged in such a marked campaign of worldwide suppression of free speech.
3. No other religion (as far as I'm aware) currently calls for the death of non-believers because they offend religious sensibilities i.e. fatwas against non-Muslims like Salman Rushdie.

Most of what you're saying is incorrect
Looks like you didn't get what I'm saying
I'll repeat
Islamic law which unfortunately not practiced is not tolerant with Muslims and only Muslims who decided to leave Islam
It's same Allah law that is in Torah.
Is it clear?


Discussion with respect without defying is allowed and it happens everyday
Our history is full of documentation of interfaith and non-Muslim debates since early days
If Islamic law is applied in all Islamic world it has nothing to do with people outside the land under authority of the law
Salman Rushdie was an Iranian propaganda

But some Muslims get angry from extreme defying our symbols and