• 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
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.

I concur. Islamophobia is a very heavily-abused term. In fact I get the impression it was set up specifically to be (ab)used this way.
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
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.

I have just watched that video again and I cannot see any part of it that is far-fetched.

As for islamophobia, this is a good explanation.

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/islamophobia.aspx
 

Kuzcotopia

If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.

Kuzcotopia

If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
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.

As an atheist, I don't much of a dog in this fight, but this is why the term applies.

The video imagines a massive conspiracy theory where every single Muslim deliberately deceives all non-Muslims into believing in peace as opposed to a violent takeover.

I don't like Islam. I think it's full of terrible ideas.

But if you're telling me that a billion people are successfully in on a conspiracy to deceive the other 5-6 billion, and have successfully done so until today. . . When this brave little video came out. . . Well, that's the definition of a phobia.

Yes, the term doesn't apply in many cases where it's uses, but the third claim of this video is abhorrent to me as an atheist skeptic. . . And I call them where I see them.

Edit: Since you invoked Godwin's Law first, let's talk Nazi. I'd say this is the exact kind of video a fascist propaganda machine, such as the Nazi party, might produce to invoke fear of a minority population.
 
Last edited:

Acim

Revelation all the time
You don't think it's far-fetched that 1+ billion Muslims have been specifically trained by their religion to knowingly lie to all non-Muslims?

Because that's what the video says.

Can you point out the place where the video says, "1+ billion Muslims have been specifically trained by their religion to knowingly lie to all non-Muslims?"

I'm pretty sure I know, from watching the video, what you will (instead) cite, but it'll help the discussion when you post what is actually said.
 

Kuzcotopia

If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
Can you point out the place where the video says, "1+ billion Muslims have been specifically trained by their religion to knowingly lie to all non-Muslims?"

I'm pretty sure I know, from watching the video, what you will (instead) cite, but it'll help the discussion when you post what is actually said.

I don't want to watch it again. Urg. :)

But it lays out the argument that earlier passages in the Quran are contradicted by the later passages. . . And that according to the book, the later passages are the true ones.

Muslims who invoke earlier passages about the religion being at peace are deliberately deceiving westerners because they know that those passages are already wrong.

This is a pretty big conspiracy theory, IMO.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Should Sharia Law be forbidden in Non-Muslim (Western) countries?

Which bits?
So you want to ban 'Don't steal' or 'Don't murder' or 'Don't rob'?

Those are Sharia laws matey! :shrug:

So maybe you need to define exactly which bits of Sharia you don't like?
;)
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
Don’t shoot the messenger. I am only reporting what Islam is instructing.

If anyone can point out what specific parts of the video are incorrect, I will look into it.
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
I don't want to watch it again. Urg. :)

But it lays out the argument that earlier passages in the Quran are contradicted by the later passages. . . And that according to the book, the later passages are the true ones.

Muslims who invoke earlier passages about the religion being at peace are deliberately deceiving westerners because they know that those passages are already wrong.

This is a pretty big conspiracy theory, IMO.

The suras of the Quran can be grouped into two distinct periods in Muhammad's life. There is the earlier "Meccan" period, when Muhammad had little to say about violence or "fighting in Allah's way." Not only did he not have the power to force Islam on others at the time, but he was borrowing heavily from Judeo-Christian religious tradition.

Then there are the "Medinan" suras and later, in which the commands to violent Jihad and intolerance increase corresponding to Muhammad's military strength. The bloody 9th Sura (the Verse of the Sword) is one of the very last to be handed down by the prophet of Islam, and it came at a time when the Muslims had already achieved power over their neighbors, forcing into exile those who would not convert.

Most of the Quran is about unbelievers and much of this is devoted to their earthly or divine punishment. People of other religions are said to be "cursed by Allah." The more tolerant verses (though popular with contemporary apologists) are less numerous than the later, more violent ones. According to the Quran itself, the later verses abrogate those that precede them (Allah doesn't change his word, 6:115, but he does "substitute" it when he comes up with something better, 2:106 16:101).

It is important to note that the Quran does not contain a single original moral value. However, it is the only major religion to do away with the rule of general benevolence found in all others - including Christianity's "Golden Rule." Instead of advocating universal love and charity, the Quran distinguishes between believers and unbelievers, drawing a sharp distinction in the value of each group and laying the foundation for discrimination and dehumanization (see Is the Quran Hate Propaganda?).

Those who abandon themselves to what the Quran literally says generally become a danger to those around them who are not like-minded. Other Muslims often maintain a discreet loyalty to a predetermined moral framework around which they may choose to mold the Quran by filtering out inconvenient sections - usually on the basis of context - while placing disproportionate emphasis on limited fragments of earlier verses that appear to be in agreement.

The Quran repeatedly stresses Muhammad's personal claim to being a prophet. Those who accept it are morally superior to those who don't. Muslims will receive the highest reward in paradise while the non-believers will suffer egregious torment in hell - as well as a "painful punishment" in this life.

There is more information here https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/introduction.aspx
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
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
You make it sound like the Muslim member states are good with the UDHR, they're not.

Please see what the geniuses at the OIC came up with that would make them far happier.
Cairo Declaration on Human Rights

The UN had a collective wtf moment over that novelty.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
(3) 002.110
And be steadfast in prayer and regular in charity: And whatever good ye send forth for your souls before you, ye shall find it with Allah: for Allah sees Well all that ye do.

(5) 002.215
They ask thee what they should spend (In charity). Say: Whatever ye spend that is good, is for parents and kindred and orphans and those in want and for wayfarers. And whatever ye do that is good, -Allah knoweth it well.

(11) 002.274
Those who (in charity) spend of their goods by night and by day, in secret and in public, have their reward with their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve

(42) 028.054

Twice will they be given their reward, for that they have persevered, that they avert Evil with Good, and that they spend (in charity) out of what We have given them.
 

psychoslice

Veteran Member
Oppressive societies should be allowed to become more free, but free societies shouldn't be allowed to become more oppressive.
I see what your trying to say, but then it depends on what you mean by oppressive, certainly not cutting peoples heads off, and stoning them to death.
 

psychoslice

Veteran Member
That is simply not really possible. We all are "other people's business", like it or not. Unless you somehow know how to live without occupying any land, nor needing any food or water.
I don't think you quite understand what I am trying to say ?.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
I gotta read through this thread more closely, so forgive me if this has been said, but I would generalize the OP and say:

No body of law that is largely based on unfalsifiable claims should be allowed to exist anywhere.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
I gotta read through this thread more closely, so forgive me if this has been said, but I would generalize the OP and say:

No body of law that is largely based on unfalsifiable claims should be allowed to exist anywhere.
You such a hater. :cool:
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
While Muslims themselves are debating over what exactly Shaira law is, I'll just say that all religious-based laws should be banned from serving as the basis for legislation.
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.
Even then, ideas are bullet and bomb proof.
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.
While I will say we are just better off leaving such things in the past (and it includes Christianity), I don't get this "must end, no ifs ands or buts about it." We're not talking about a group like the Hell's Angels, where they are criminals, and a good number of them dangerous. Rather, we are looking at a religion that is centered in an area that has long been the center of international tensions. After an imperialist stranglehold, the British and French took it upon themselves to draw up borders around the Middle East, and the instability has been rampant since. That we see such violence should not be surprising.
However, we also have plenty of places throughout the Middle East that are way more liberal than places like Iran or Saudi Arabia, and the Ottoman Empire was nothing like these nutcase death-cult Jihadists, and the Ottoman's were even fairly progressive for their times, highly revered ancient Greek art and philosophy, had a decent education system, and even made significant advances in mathematics and medicine. Basically, the Middle East today is acting like Europe was after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the Vatican began to waiver, and everyone began going to war and constantly invading each other over the centuries. And we've not made yet made it a full century since the last time a Christian got the bright idea to go on a "mission from god" and rampage through Europe. But, obviously, there aren't overall too many Christians around who agree with Hitler's ideas about what God meant. Likewise, most Muslims do not agree with this fatally Conservative brand of Wahabi, most Muslim women are not so repressed they have to be completely covered, but we do have to realize that so many of them from the Middle East hate America and the West because the West has, for so long, tried to control them politically and economically, bomb the crap out of them, use their homes for proxy wars, prop up and support certain groups, and I would say they've had enough of it.
The sad thing, really, is that the American Founders went to war against England over basically the same things America is doing in the Middle East.
 
Top