• 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!

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

As above

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

The Emperor of Mankind

Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
Your question is incorrect.

What do you mean by this?

Peace be on you.
Shariah is a misunderstood and misused concept. God reveals His desire of how a believer should shape his destiny. God’s will is manifested in the form of certain laws or principles. These laws or principles constitute shariah. Shariah is not unique to Islam. Every faith has its own form of shariah.

At its core, shariah is intended to develop and sustain a moral and just society. Unfortunately, certain Islamic countries have failed to observe the precondition of absolute justice before imposing shariah.

Sharia cannot achieve absolute justice because it is an inherently unjust system of governance. Justice requires equality before the law which Sharia does not recognise.


Extremists and their religious clerics invoke shariah to justify the killing of the innocent and vulnerable. They abandon the Quranic principles of governance in favor of discriminate and grossly improper applications of Islamic law. They view shariah as an instrument of conquest and carnage instead of justice and decency.

So it is extremist to observe the Quranic verses commanding Muslims to extort protection money (jizyah) from non-Muslim monotheists?


Religion should not be the business of the state.

Do you believe legislating against establishing Sharia law and other parallel religious legal systems runs contrary to this?
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Or by subverting it for your own ends.

You can not subvert sovereignty. A country remains sovereign whoever rules it or however they managed to gain power.

A country remains sovereign even when ruled by a despot. It is nothing to do with how it is governed or if any one likes it.
It is the nature of being a distinct country.
Criticism and dissent, has nothing at all to do with sovereignty

There was some dissent with Franco's rule, but he was generalissimo to the day he died. He even named the heir to the throne to succeed him as head of state.
I heard few complaints. Through all this Spain was Sovereign.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Best of luck.


Quite so.


That too.


Hardly. It just points out that there will be a lot of pain and sorrow involved when the inevitable happens.

It is not in the power of Muslims to make it otherwise. And it is not in the power of anyone else either.

I won't insist on feeling guilty for contradictions and self-inflicted harm that came by no choice of mine. It is not anyone fault, Muslims or otherwise, that Islam is a dead end.

But it would be my fault if, once I learned of that (which I did gradually in the last couple of years or so) I refused to accept that and the consequences. The main of which is the duty not to further vain hopes that it might somehow turn out ok in the end.

Islam is doomed to collapse under its own weight, because it is a glorified bet that can't be won. Therefore, those who realize and accept that have a moral duty to lessen the damage as they can, mainly by pointing out that they won't play a lost game and encouraging others not to put theirs on that line either.



I can, I must, and I most definitely do.

I also lament that they have to go through so much sorrow, for they are very much a sincere set of people overall.

I also acknowledge that not very many among them ever had a choice, much as I never had the choice to not be raised into Christian expectations and Spiritist environments either.

To a very significant extent, that is why Islam will fall. It causes a lot of harm and sorrow to those who sincerely listened to its message and sacrifice so much to it.

Without a modicum of acceptance of diversity of belief and of respect for scientific education, Islam condenes itself to obscuratism.

And with both, it condenes itself to self-extinction by way of contradiction.

It is really sad. It is ultimately unavoidable. It can't help but be painful and disturbing to a very many people.

And it is not my fault, so I will feel lots of sorrow, but no guilt whatsoever.



Darn right I do not. That would be wrong in all conceivable levels, starting with the moral justification and going all the way up to the practical results. Violent actions are not even helpful in containing Islamic beliefs, even if I were willing to disregard their complete failure at the moral level.

That in no way translates into any obligation of stating that Islam is viable, sustainable or even respectable, though. Muslims must ever be respected, among other reasons simply because they are human beings that are entitled to basic dignity. Islam must earn its respect, although that will ultimately mean self-extinction.

There is a conflict there, and it will be very painful. But it is not so for any fault of mine. It is instead an inherent contradiction among Islam's goals. It is simply not possible to attain lasting peace by betting on the wisdom of subjecting oneself to the tender mercies of a doctrine that is inimical to both freedom and rationality.

I must deal with that situation both respecfully and realistically. That means refusing to further the harm while also accepting that its causes are not my own choices and actions, and therefore all that I can do is contribute to lessening the damage by spreading awareness and dispelling well-meaning but ultimately destructive delusions.

Sometimes a situation simply can't have a happy end, and we are left with the choice among various painful resolutions. I refuse to encourage Muslims and non-Muslims into ways that I sincerely believe to be ultimately destructive. All the more so because for years now I have carefully considered the evidence, the doctrines, the testimonials and the arguments.

Either I accept that Islam will fall under its own weight and we must deal with the damage control of it - as so many others did in various measures in the past in the Ottoman Empire, in India and elsewhere - or I choose to lie to myself about it and therefore become a willing contributor to augmenting that damage. There is no logical third option.


Perhaps, but I don't think so. I do not want to liquidate religion, or even Islam (which I no longer consider a religion).

I just refuse to speak on its behalf anymore, now that I have learned how poor a choice that would be. Islam does not deserve my protection, although its victims and its own adherents certainly do. And by consequence, I won't attempt to avoid its collapse and I will not waste any efforts by presuming the best of it at every opportunity anymore.

That will result in lots of conflict and sorrow. And it would be that tiny bit worse still if I refused to accept the reality. It is not in my power to make either the past, the present or the future of Islam painless, healthy or safe. I must instead deal with the consequences of its existence and its lifecycle.


Quite true, and a good if certainly dangerous thing, too.

Islam at its root demands others to either accept it or confront it, even as it insists on disrespecting those who do not agree with it and lying to itself on that matter. It is an arrogant bet that bullies others into paying the price for its pride. Therefore, it must be defeated, and it will.

Anti-Islamism is a moral need, although most people don't fully realize that and would rather attempt to doubt it as long as they possibly can. I know I did.

We must ever watch against misjudgements and unfairness as it is expressed, for there is a lot at stake, and it is a delicate and serious balance to pursue too. But expressed it must be, in a decisive if hopefully careful and loving way.


I just don't know what you mean here. You seem to be assuming some sort of violent means in my discourse, even though you acknowledge that I don't lend those any support.

I can only guess that you are operating under the premise that I had the choice to leave Islam well enough alone and have it return the favor. That is an appealling thought, and one that I nurtured for a long time. No longer.



My feelings are actually far more mixed than my goals. There is indeed satisfaction in no longer carrying the burden of attempting to protect Islam as an idea. But there is also the sober and grim realization that the sorrow has only began and I have a moral duty to be a witness and even an instigator to some measure of it.

It can't be helped. All the other options are worse, although some involve some measure of denial and may appear to be less painful at first.

As for unethical means, I am again not quite sure what you mean. The question of how much of influence my statements may have on the motivations of others is intriguing, and I can't deny that I wish I were influential to some discernible extent. And of course there is an ethical responsibility coming with any ideas and goals, particularly when those are extreme.

Still... how responsible exactly do you expect me to feel for the flaws of the ideas that I am exposing? And how helpful, if at all, would it be if I chose denial instead?

It seems to me that while the dangers of violent extremism are real and worrisome on both sides of the clash of expectations, it is not at all helpful to attempt to postpone the confrontation. The conflicts will only fester and worsen if we keep hoping for the best while avoiding mutual, clear understanding. Extremism is caused by fear, which by its turn is enabled by ignorance. While safety comes from respect, which demands acceptance which by its turn comes from awareness and acknowledgement.

In a nutshell, idealized Islam - the one that is willing to learn from reality, the one that understands and accepts basic human dignity, the one that is not a harmful and glorified bet on the truth of the Qur'an and that is not all out unprepared to deal with diversity of beliefs - is certainly so much more palatable than real Islam. But it is not any help in promoting mutual understanding, respect and acceptance, and therefore must be discarded. The sooner, the better.


I guess you failed. Either at understanding what road that is or in showing me that it is not one to be taken. I'm betting on the first option.


I will never support any form of genocide, so again, it seems that you are misreading me quite fiercely.



Good thing that it is not mine, then.
That is an extraordinary response, @LuisDantas
I would be hard pressed to express this any better.
 

meghanwaterlillies

Well-Known Member
What do you mean by this?



Sharia cannot achieve absolute justice because it is an inherently unjust system of governance. Justice requires equality before the law which Sharia does not recognise.




So it is extremist to observe the Quranic verses commanding Muslims to extort protection money (jizyah) from non-Muslim monotheists?




Do you believe legislating against Sharia law and other parallel legal systems runs contrary to this?
So it is extremist to observe the Quranic verses commanding Muslims to extort protection money (jizyah) from non-Muslim monotheists?
Was this only from the quran?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
A country would need to adopt Sharia law for it to come into effect.
That is only possible with countries that have a Muslim majority.
This is not the case, nor anywhere near the case, in any western country.
Unless it's done voluntarily.

In countries that allow alternative dispute resolution as an alternative to a court trial, the participants can choose their own rules (within certain limits) about how the dispute can be resolved. When Sharia is implemented in the West, this is generally how it's done: by Muslim parties to a legal dispute jointly deciding to use a Sharia-based dispute mediator/arbitrator.

Anyone is free to live their lives following any religious rules in western countries. This is a personal choice and affects no one else.
Kinda sorta. I'm still concerned about people who might be pressured into following a Sharia process when they don't really want it.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
One must keep in mind that "country" is an abstraction.

People don't mind meld and attain homogeneous peace of mind at a midpoint from their various goals and perspectives. Instead, they allow representatives to make decisions on their behalf with varying degrees of confort, peace and legitimacy.

Any system will have to deal with internal discord, even if it is by pretending that such does not exist.

It becomes dangerous when some people allow themselves to be convinced that their leaders and doctrines are validated by a supreme God. It is all too easy, perhaps inevitable, to brand those who refuse to fit those expectations and disregard their dignity.
 

The Emperor of Mankind

Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
You can not subvert sovereignty. A country remains sovereign whoever rules it or however they managed to gain power.

It might benefit you to learn a little about how the United Kingdom was formed. A combination of economic blackmail, political manoeuvring and a king not ruling for the benefit of his people ensured the Scottish Parliament was subverted and our sovereignty was subverted and subsumed into the UK.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Unless it's done voluntarily.

In countries that allow alternative dispute resolution as an alternative to a court trial, the participants can choose their own rules (within certain limits) about how the dispute can be resolved. When Sharia is implemented in the West, this is generally how it's done: by Muslim parties to a legal dispute jointly deciding to use a Sharia-based dispute mediator/arbitrator.


Kinda sorta. I'm still concerned about people who might be pressured into following a Sharia process when they don't really want it.

Any one or organisation can set them self up as arbitrators. This in no way supersede the law of the land. any settlement is a it is a voluntary agreement between the parties involved. It has no legal standing. Decisions can not be imposed that would otherwise be illegal.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
It might benefit you to learn a little about how the United Kingdom was formed. A combination of economic blackmail, political manoeuvring and a king not ruling for the benefit of his people ensured the Scottish Parliament was subverted and our sovereignty was subverted and subsumed into the UK.

Absolutely... might is right.... It was always so.
You do not necessarily have to send in an army to defeat another country. but the UK usually used that as a softener or a threat.
My family left Scotland as plantationists they did very well in Ireland, as did many other Scots. the Scots did pretty well in Canada too.... who cared about the previous population, French or native.
"Evangeline" is pretty epic.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I can't vote.
I oppose sharia law being codified by government.
But I'm OK with voluntary submission to it by parties in a dispute.
In this way, it would be much like binding arbitration....which we desperately need more of.
 

Acim

Revelation all the time
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.

Watched at least two thirds of the video and hard to identify the Islamophobia.
But because I found post #34 informative, I am interested in hearing whether @DawudTalut considers the piece to be Islamophobic?
 

Acim

Revelation all the time
It is and it isn't informative though @Acim as @DawudTalut is speaking from the point of view of the infinitesimally small sect known as Ahmadiyya.

So far though, he's the only self identified Muslim to speak in this thread. Claims of Islamophobia currently show up as implausible or incredulous when coming from non-Muslims. Especially when a video like this is presented and nothing is cited from it to make that claim. Post #2 just goes with "it implies."
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
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.

Hey Ymir, I was in a throughly foul mood this morning. What I said was not deserved, so I owe you an apology. Sorry about that. :(
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Hey Ymir, I was in a throughly foul mood this morning. What I said was not deserved, so I owe you an apology. Sorry about that. :(
Further to what Luis is talking about, part of what I see as the "house of cards" syndrome in Islam is the distinct ossification of thought. Though true that Islam is not monolithic and impervious to change it does have a rather tough crust that most certainly thwarts or impedes change. That is what I see as being the cause of the "house" coming down - under its own unrealistic weight.
 

Kuzcotopia

If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
Watched at least two thirds of the video and hard to identify the Islamophobia.
But because I found post #34 informative, I am interested in hearing whether @DawudTalut considers the piece to be Islamophobic?

The first two points lead into the third claim, that all Muslims are indoctrinated to lie to all non-Muslim westerners.

You should watch the whole thing before you comment further.
 

Acim

Revelation all the time
The first two points lead into the third claim, that all Muslims are indoctrinated to lie to all non-Muslim westerners.

You should watch the whole thing before you comment further.

I have now watched the whole video, and would strongly prefer a Muslim's perspective on what is being stated in the video.

It would seem if there is any non-Muslim western nation that has Sharia courts in place (to appease Muslim calls to treat Muslims under their own laws, regardless of the laws of the Western nation) that this is troublesome (to the Western nation) to say the least.

Saying "Islamophobia" doesn't really help if there is reason to be cautious. Like bring up "Naziphobia" and then implying we ought not to be cautious against Naziism, or if you are, that's just phobia on your part and has no place in a world where we welcome all thoughts and ways of life. If Nazis want to have their own courts in Western lands, that ought to be granted.
 

Scott C.

Just one guy

To the extent that Sharia Law is unconstitutional, it's already banned in the U.S. To the extent that it does not violate the constitution, it falls to the electorate to decide what laws we want on a case by case basis. I see no need to classify proposed legislation as Sharia or not. Why would there be such a need and what would it accomplish?
 
Top