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

[Akivah]

In this context Sharia only applies to Muslims. However by having Jewish law, link Sharia, as part of the legal system of a secular nation you are in fact placing your laws above the laws of the land. You want your own laws not the laws that apply to everyone. This is called special privilege.

You're wrong. Our laws are only for ourselves, they are not in the legal system of American laws. No one else is required to abstain from eating a pig or shrimp, no one else is required to avoid working on Shabbat. Contrasted to places that have enforced Sharia laws, they forbid EVERYONE from drinking liquor, they forbid EVERY woman from wearing short clothes, etc.

 

[Shad]

You're wrong. Our laws are only for ourselves, they are not in the legal system of American laws. No one else is required to abstain from eating a pig or shrimp, no one else is required to avoid working on Shabbat. Contrasted to places that have enforced Sharia laws, they forbid EVERYONE from drinking liquor, they forbid EVERY woman from wearing short clothes, etc.

You didn't understand me. If one petitions for their religious laws to be part of the national legal system this is a special privilege. This is not the same as practicing your religious laws outside of the legal system.

You have created a strawman as I clearly said within context which means application in secular nations not Muslim nations. Read my comment again.

 

[Muffled]

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

I believe In the US there would be constitutional rights that Sharia law would not be able to abnegate.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Reason I voted no is simple. There should be no banning of laws that don't conflict with the current laws in place. The Sharia law is irrelevant to the law of the land. There is no need to ban it if you simply have established laws that don't even consider it one way or another. If practices conflict with the law of the land they are already banned without special new laws put in place. If practices don't conflict with the law of the land then what is the problem?

 

[icehorse]

Reason I voted no is simple. There should be no banning of laws that don't conflict with the current laws in place. The Sharia law is irrelevant to the law of the land. There is no need to ban it if you simply have established laws that don't even consider it one way or another. If practices conflict with the law of the land they are already banned without special new laws put in place. If practices don't conflict with the law of the land then what is the problem?

Much of the seemingly innocuous ground that Sharia covers implies fundamental inequality across people. The most common example would be that much of Sharia assumes women are second class citizens.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Much of the seemingly innocuous ground that Sharia covers implies fundamental inequality across people. The most common example would be that much of Sharia assumes women are second class citizens.

And any instance of someone attempting to practice Sharia law that discriminates against women should be subject to the anti-discrimination laws of the land. If they don't have them then I would recon that simply banning Sharia law would do little till they fix that.

 

[icehorse]

And any instance of someone attempting to practice Sharia law that discriminates against women should be subject to the anti-discrimination laws of the land. If they don't have them then I would recon that simply banning Sharia law would do little till they fix that.

That seems cumbersome and error prone. Why would be introduce the idea of a set of laws inside another set of laws? Why allow that precedent?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That seems cumbersome and error prone. Why would be introduce the idea of a set of laws inside another set of laws? Why allow that precedent?

There is no second set of laws. There is only the law of the land. Then there is the religious opinion based on Sharia law. They are allowed to practice that opinion so long as it does not interfere with the law of the land. The term "Sharia LAW" is law in name only. It is not a law in any legal matter. IT is no different than allowing the Christians the 10 commandments. If they had called them the 10 LAWs it would be treated the same. It is legal and safe to not cheat on your wife. It is highly illegal to stone your spouse to death if they cheat.

I propose there is only one set of laws. No need to ban any others because there are no other "laws" to ban.

 

[icehorse]

There is no second set of laws. There is only the law of the land. Then there is the religious opinion based on Sharia law. They are allowed to practice that opinion so long as it does not interfere with the law of the land. The term "Sharia LAW" is law in name only. It is not a law in any legal matter. IT is no different than allowing the Christians the 10 commandments. If they had called them the 10 LAWs it would be treated the same. It is legal and safe to not cheat on your wife. It is highly illegal to stone your spouse to death if they cheat.

I propose there is only one set of laws. No need to ban any others because there are no other "laws" to ban.

It seems that you're making up your own definition of Sharia?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It seems that you're making up your own definition of Sharia?

I have taken a little bit of leeway with the strict definition for my point.

You don't need to ban Sharia law to not have it law. Simply have the law of the land be the law of the land. IF Sharia law is passed in that country it is because the country willed it to happen. A non-Islamic nation will not require you to bow and pray to Mecca for example. The concepts of Sharia law can be followed on a personal level to the degree that it does not disagree with the law of the land.

Banning Sharia law specifically doesn't make a lot of sense unless one party felt that the other party was close to having it passed legally within the country. A proposed ban on ALL religious based laws is a good idea. I support that one whole-heartedly. All laws should be bacted by secular pragmatic reasons.

 

[icehorse]

A proposed ban on ALL religious based laws is a good idea.

That's certainly my favorite stance.

But it seems that Islam is more totalitarian than the other major religions, so its legal facet is more "baked in", so - for example - battling with Christians about law has a different "feel" than battling Muslims about law.

 

[Notanumber]

Integration used to be the buzzword at one time and that served us well, then along came multiculturalism and things started to go downhill.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That's certainly my favorite stance.

But it seems that Islam is more totalitarian than the other major religions, so its legal facet is more "baked in", so - for example - battling with Christians about law has a different "feel" than battling Muslims about law.

The Christian religion was just as bad till the age of enlightenment. Both have the same basic structure and both are totalitarian. The thing is that the west and more or less moved to a secular society.

 

[icehorse]

The Christian religion was just as bad till the age of enlightenment. Both have the same basic structure and both are totalitarian. The thing is that the west and more or less moved to a secular society.

I can buy that. So now we're faced with another medieval ideology but with the potential of modern weapons. So Islam doesn't get the benefit of the same long, slow learning curve that Christianity got. Perhaps it's not fair, but it doesn't matter, Islam must quickly get through its medieval sensibilities. Giving up inches to Sharia is working in the wrong direction.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I can buy that. So now we're faced with another medieval ideology but with the potential of modern weapons. So Islam doesn't get the benefit of the same long, slow learning curve that Christianity got. Perhaps it's not fair, but it doesn't matter, Islam must quickly get through its medieval sensibilities. Giving up inches to Sharia is working in the wrong direction.

I wouldn't suggest otherwise. I also wouldn't specifically lay out in law writings that Sharia law is banned. This will cause a backlash of martyrs.

 

[icehorse]

I wouldn't suggest otherwise. I also wouldn't specifically lay out in law writings that Sharia law is banned. This will cause a backlash of martyrs.

I rest my case.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

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.

Which particular 'Islam' must end?

 

[idav]

I agree with separation of church and state as it is in the US constitution, but western countries are free to do the will of the people.

BTW voted no. Don't think forbidden is a good word former it. Islam seems integrated in a religion and as such cannot be forbidden so much even with my above argument, because of freedom of religion.

 

[LuisDantas]

Which particular 'Islam' must end?

The one that insists on the need of "submission to God".

 

[Limo]

The one that insists on the need of "submission to God".

You're dreaming. No way. impossible.

Vice versa is going on Islam is going up