Sharia Law in Ireland?

Mick86

An article in today's Sunday Independent identified what may become a problem in Ireland in future.

Sharia law in Ireland 'if Muslims are the majority'

SHARIA law should rule Ireland in the event of a Muslim majority, a senior Islamic cleric has said.

The legal system, derived from the Koran, is implemented in a number of Islamic countries to varying degrees, from beheadings in Saudi Arabia to the more liberal attitudes of Malaysia.

Secretary-General of the Irish Council of Imams Ali Selim said: "There is a clear misunderstanding of the term Sharia law. People get alerted to what will happen them when they hear this term and see it as a negative thing. But under Sharia law a Christian can live by Christian laws, a Jew by the laws of Judaism, and Muslims by Sharia law.

"If the majority in a country want something and vote for it, do you accept it or do you put it in the bin? If a majority want it then it should happen. If not, that is a dictatorship."

In Sharia law a set of offences known as Hadd are punishable by penalties such as stoning or flogging to death, or the chopping off of a hand. These offences include sex outside marriage, theft and drinking alcohol, but the majority of Islamic states do not adopt Hadd offences as part of their state law.

The recently formed Irish Council of Imams represents all 14 imams in the Republic of Ireland and has the authority to speak on behalf of the country's 40,000 Muslims.

While Mr Selim would like to see Sharia law in Ireland, and the Muslim community has grown dramatically in recent years, he admits the likelihood of forming a majority is extremely slim.

He said: "The reality is that the Muslim community in Ireland, or in any part of Europe, are minorities and the best they can wish for is to be able to integrate. The Irish do not make us feel like strangers and they do not find diversity threatening. They have been very welcoming to us and we are cooperating with them for the joint good."

Speaking of the violent outcry from Muslims around the world at Pope Benedict's remarks on Islam, Mr Selim said it was important the reaction was understood in the context of the environment in which it took place.

He said: "This violence happened in a very limited area and you must look at the political environment in those areas to understand it. In Ireland we were definitely shocked, but when we realised the Vatican was taking steps towards a withdrawal we decided not to express our views. If we had expressed our views it would have been in a civil manner and in a way harmonious to the society in which we live."

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1694204&issue_id=14687

lostexpectation

Mick86 wrote:

An article in today's Sunday Independent identified what may become a problem in Ireland in future.

if Muslim are majority, Which they will not be so end of story.

Rev Hellfire

That article is so true, why look at turkey a muslim state and its got sharia law, no wait *err* hold on. Just because you have a muslim majority it doesnt hold you have to have sharia law.

That article proves nothing and is simple scare mongering.

Mick86

lostexpectation wrote:

if Muslim are majority, Which they will not be so end of story.

If there is a substantial minority they might also demand some form of self-governance as has been demanded in Britain.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

That article is so true, why look at turkey a muslim state and its got sharia law, no wait *err* hold on. Just because you have a muslim majority it doesnt hold you have to have sharia law.

That article proves nothing and is simple scare mongering.

It proves nothing except a glimpse into the attitude of Ireland's Imams. You will note that Ali Selim didn't say Turkey doesn't implement Sharia Law so Ireland won't. And of course there are plenty of Muslim States that do implement Sharia Law. Iran and Saudi Arabia being two such states where pre-medieval laws are still in use. Even Pakistan recently failed to bring it's rape laws out of the dark ages.

Schuhart

Rev Hellfire wrote:

That article proves nothing and is simple scare mongering.

True, and in any case given that we're still in the process of recovering from having an amount of Catholic ethics stitched into our laws there's hardly scope for assuming the moral high ground on this one.

Hobbes

Mick86 warned. Read the charter.

Thread moved to Humanities.

Incidently Mick, They have Sharia law in England already, its just not allowed to supercede the laws of the land. I recommend you go read up on it.

Also as hard as this is to believe, the majority vote in what they want. I believe that's called democracy.

Victor

Mick86 wrote:

If there is a substantial minority they might also demand some form of self-governance as has been demanded in Britain.

Like the Scots and Welsh?

Even Pakistan recently failed to bring it's rape laws out of the dark ages.

Those laws date from the 1970s

fly_agaric

Victor wrote:

Those laws date from the 1970s

Er, I don't think the adjective "dark ages" refers to exactly when the laws came into force (which is something I do not know).
You are being too literal IMO...

Maybe Ireland or the UK could learn something from Pakistan here?
I'm sure feminists who complain that not enough men are jailed for rape and want to raise those conviction rates would be only too delighted with that!:)

Hobbes wrote:

Also as hard as this is to believe, the majority vote in what they want.

If the "moral majority" [or "moral important minority" for muslims perhaps] ever come to believe they can force their Holy Laws down people's gobs in this country again that would be a good time for the immoral minority/majority to bug out of Ireland altogether, don't ya think?:)

Zombrex

Mick86 wrote:

An article in today's Sunday Independent identified what may become a problem in Ireland in future.

I'm not sure how? Ireland is not going to have a majority of Muslims any time soon (or any time in the distant future as far as population trends are going), and as someone else pointed out, just because a country is Muslim majorty doesn't mean it will have Islamic law. For Islamic law to be fully inplimented large parts of the consitution would have to be reformed, so we are talking about a series of referendums, its not something the government could do.

I wouldn't worry to much about his. I would be more worried about getting the current Christian government to start sorting the country out

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

I wouldn't worry to much about his. I would be more worried about getting the current Christian government to start sorting the country out

I wonder if you'd get better odds on the public (of any religion) demanding canings for criminals in front of the Giant Needle of Dublin than on any Irish govt. "sorting the country out".
Maybe both are not mutually exclusive? (joke)

Mick86

Hobbes wrote:

Mick86 warned. Read the charter.

Thread moved to Humanities. .

With all due respect, the post is about Islam. It refers to Irish Muslims and is not offensive. What is the basis of your warning exactly?

Hobbes wrote:

Incidently Mick, They have Sharia law in England already, its just not allowed to supercede the laws of the land. I recommend you go read up on it.

Then it isn't law.

Hobbes wrote:

Also as hard as this is to believe, the majority vote in what they want. I believe that's called democracy.

True which is why we need to safeguard our democracy now before an alien culture votes it away.

Mick86

Wicknight wrote:

I'm not sure how? Ireland is not going to have a majority of Muslims any time soon (or any time in the distant future as far as population trends are going), and as someone else pointed out, just because a country is Muslim majorty doesn't mean it will have Islamic law. For Islamic law to be fully inplimented large parts of the consitution would have to be reformed, so we are talking about a series of referendums, its not something the government could do.

I wouldn't worry to much about his. I would be more worried about getting the current Christian government to start sorting the country out

I suggest you re-read the posts above this one.

lostexpectation

Mick86 wrote:

With all due respect, the post is about Islam. It refers to Irish Muslims and is not offensive. What is the basis of your warning exactly?



Then it isn't law.

there are several layers of laws.

Mick86

fly_agaric wrote:

I wonder if you'd get better odds on the public (of any religion) demanding canings for criminals in front of the Giant Needle of Dublin than on any Irish govt.

I'd be more worried about the extremer punishments that Sharia Law demands.

Mick86

lostexpectation wrote:

there are several layers of laws.

Really. So give me an example.

philologos

It's very unlikely Muslims will be the majority in our lifetime anyway

Zombrex

Mick86 wrote:

I suggest you re-read the posts above this one.

Which ones?

Parts of Sharia law have been implimented in countries such as Canada for civil disputes between two willing Muslim parties. The system is not used for criminal disputes and has nothing to do with punishment for criminals. You also don't have to use it if you don't want to. In Canada similar systems existed for Chritian and Jewish civil disputes for years.

For Ireland to enter into full on Islamic law like in Iran or Saudi Arabia large parts of the constitution would need to be updated or simply removed. This cannot happen without a referendum, and Muslims would need to be in a large majority for this to happen.

There are appox 25,000 Muslims in Ireland, and 4.2 million non-Muslims (approx), the Muslim population would need to grow 160 times to out number non-Muslims, and the non-Muslim population would need to stay static. And that is only a 50% majority, I think you need more to change the consitution (might be wrong about this).

So like Jakkas said, it is very doubtful that we will experience a Muslim majority, or anything close to that, in Ireland within our life time

damonjewel

I think its more frightening that this is the expressed view of the Imam (mind you he could have been taken out of context by the Indo), Imagine if the Bishop of Beirut said that if the majority of the Lebanon were Catholics then we should have Theocracy based on vatican teachings, there would be outrage by most Catholics to this. IMO most muslims I have met and I am fairly well travelled are happy with the democratic laws of their land (e.g. Tunisia,Turkey) and Sharia law would be out of the question. I have been in Iran too and the government is widely despised by most Iranians who confided in me about the situation there.

Hobbes

Mick86 wrote:

With all due respect, the post is about Islam. It refers to Irish Muslims and is not offensive. What is the basis of your warning exactly?

Read the charter of the forum. Your post was clearly an attempt at your personal opinion stating that people of Islam are a threat and need to be stopped.

Then it isn't law.

Yes it is. They are British lawyers who follow British laws. What happens is two muslims will come together to the lawyers who will say "We wish to settle dispute X according to Sharia law". The lawyer will work with them to settle the matter while obeying the laws of the land.

It has been going on for years and is perfectly legal.

All your scaremongering of beheadings/stonings/etc are actually not part of Sharia law.

True which is why we need to safeguard our democracy now before an alien culture votes it away.

Hence the reason you were warned.

If they were ever a majority (which is extremly unlikely even in a couple of generations) then it wouldn't be an alien culture, it would already be part of the overall culture that the majority would agree to it. Even so as mentioned you are talking about changes to our constitution which would have to be ratified by the people.

Hobbes

Actually your own story link points it out..

under Sharia law a Christian can live by Christian laws, a Jew by the laws of Judaism, and Muslims by Sharia law.

...

"If the majority in a country want something and vote for it, do you accept it or do you put it in the bin? If a majority want it then it should happen. If not, that is a dictatorship."

...

In Sharia law a set of offences known as Hadd ... but the majority of Islamic states do not adopt Hadd offences as part of their state law.

HelterSkelter

Mick86 wrote:

True which is why we need to safeguard our democracy now before an alien culture votes it away.

Sounds like a viewpoint Unionists in Nothern Ireland might have about people who want a United Ireland.

Mick86

HelterSkelter wrote:

Sounds like a viewpoint Unionists in Nothern Ireland might have about people who want a United Ireland.

Since the people who wanted a united Ireland spent their lives murdering unionists, who could blame them.

DeVore

Did I miss something? I think that muslim bloke was being pretty reasonable and hit it on the head in fact.
If the majority vote something in.... shouldnt that happen??

Or is there some controlling group that has to ok it.... my understanding is that the will of the people is the highest authority in the land, or did I miss a meeting?

DeV.

Sand

Did I miss something? I think that muslim bloke was being pretty reasonable and hit it on the head in fact.
If the majority vote something in.... shouldnt that happen??

Or is there some controlling group that has to ok it.... my understanding is that the will of the people is the highest authority in the land, or did I miss a meeting?

That would be the 4 wolves and lamb voting on what to have for dinner style democracy.

There are all sorts of brakes, locks, stabilisers and anti-populist measures in modern successful liberal democracies. Theyre there for a reason, usually to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority.

So no, if the majority vote something in, that doesnt mean it should happen.

Sesshoumaru

There is nothing wrong with wanting to protect your culture. Islam is a foreign culture and as its adherents are always pointing out its the fastest growing religion/culture on the planet. As an atheist I want to live under man made laws. Not laws made by some fictional character from an old book. As I see it there will eventually be no where left on this planet for people like myself to live as we want. Can't I have a place to call home as well? Can't people who just don't want to be Muslims have a place to call home?

Victor

damonjewel wrote:

I have been in Iran too and the government is widely despised by most Iranians who confided in me about the situation there.

And from time to time you will here the Mullahs telling the police to stop being over-vigilant.

Sesshoumaru

Hobbes wrote:

Actually your own story link points it out..

You can only live by your owns laws if you pay the Jizya tax.

Schuhart

I suppose it would be out of the question to remember that up to the 1970s it was illegal to import or sell contraceptives in this country because:

Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate

The lunacy only stopped when the Supreme Court ruled that the State had no right to stop married couples from sticking whatever they wanted wherever they wanted, and not because of any majority voting anyway.
We might also remember the constitutional ban on divorce, which took two attempts to vote out - and then by the narrowest of margins.

Clearly Islam is bunkum, same as all organised religions, and the idea that people would actually vote in a particular way because some smelly cleric has an old book is more than worrying. But can we develop some sense of proportion that stops seeing this inclination as alien? If you want to know what this kind of culture is like, ask your granny. She'll enjoy the company.

HelterSkelter

People are going on about Islam being an alien culture and that Sharia Law should not be allowed even if it is voted in by the majority. I find this quite ironic given that our culture today is totally alien to that in which our grandparents lived. If they had taken the same attitude back in their day then we would be forced to live to the values they thought were right i.e. no sex before marriage, no contraception, no divorce, strict catholic upbringing, go to mass every sinday, first friday of the month, no shopping on sundays, etc, etc...even if the majority of us vote against it.

Anyway this article is all scaremongering and another opportunity for the media to have a go at Muslims and stir up trouble. There is no way Muslims are going to outnumber non-Muslims in this country in the near or distant future.In any case all the Muslims I know would not be in favour of "penalties such as stoning or flogging to death, or the chopping off of a hand" so if there was a Muslim majority here chances are they wouldn't want Sharia Law either.

Nevyn

Out of all the western countries there is only one it is possible for such laws to be brought about with out changes in the statue of laws for the county and that funnily enough is the untited states of america.

Already there are pro christian towns being set up where the town by laws and ordances are voted upon by the people who live there and the next step is the country laws which is again is a local vote of the people living there.

State/Federal/national laws come after that.

So if a group of people got together bought a tract of land and went about building a town on it they can inact what ever town bylaws and if there is enough of them effect and inact county laws.

Pretty much the same way things are run by the vast majority of mormons in Salt Lake city.
A town/city where the bylaws are inline with sharia law is not that unfeasible.

Zombrex

Sesshoumaru wrote:

There is nothing wrong with wanting to protect your culture. Islam is a foreign culture and as its adherents are always pointing out its the fastest growing religion/culture on the planet.

But thats the point. If Islam is in the substantial majority in Ireland, it won't be a foreign culture. It will be "the" culture of Ireland. This would also take decades, so it would have been the culture of Ireland for a long time.

But I agree with Sand, just because the majority want something doesn't mean it is correct to impliment it. There are some things I would fight to stop the majority doing, if they start breaching human rights and civil liberities.

But as I said, this is all rather pointless speculation. Islam is not going to be the majority, even if it was it is doubtful that the majority of Muslims would want to democractically vote in a set of harsh Islamic laws (as someone pointed out most Muslims in the middle east don't even like these, they are sustained by the fundamentalists).

fly_agaric

HelterSkelter wrote:

People are going on about Islam being an alien culture and that Sharia Law should not be allowed even if it is voted in by the majority. I find this quite ironic given that our culture today is totally alien to that in which our grandparents lived. If they had taken the same attitude back in their day then we would be forced to live to the values they thought were right i.e. no sex before marriage, no contraception, no divorce, strict catholic upbringing, go to mass every sinday, first friday of the month, no shopping on sundays, etc, etc...even if the majority of us vote against it.

Look if muslims ever were the majority in Ireland (unlikely) and they had a burning desire to have an utterly miserable "Taliban"-type regime set up here complete with barbaric punishments for various "sins" (probably even more unlikely) then that is what would happen, isn't it. Who exactly would stop it?

I think people are just saying that they should be stopped from doing it (despite it being what the majority want) because they can see it would be wrong and a mistake...
Would you not agree it would be a bad idea?

HelterSkelter wrote:

Anyway this article is all scaremongering and another opportunity for the media to have a go at Muslims and stir up trouble.

I think that newspapers care more about circulation than stiring up trouble but if one helps the other...

HelterSkelter

fly_agaric wrote:

I think people are just saying that they should be stopped from doing it (despite it being what the majority want) because they can see it would be wrong and a mistake...
Would you not agree it would be a bad idea?

Of course I think a regime like that would be a bad idea. My point though is that people from our grandparents generation would think the way we live now is wrong and a mistake, but that doesn't that give them the right to dictate to the majority how we want to live our lives? You either live in a democracy or you don't.

Sesshoumaru

HelterSkelter wrote:

Of course I think a regime like that would be a bad idea. My point though is that people from our grandparents generation would think the way we live now is wrong and a mistake, but that doesn't that give them the right to dictate to the majority how we want to live our lives? You either live in a democracy or you don't.

Yes and while this country still has a low muslim population we need to democratically decide to stop all immigration from Muslim countries. Those who are already here are welcome to stay. But no more immigration from Muslim countries until they are ready to accept our values. Honestly whats the point of letting in people who don't want to integrate? Its reached a stage now with cheap air travel, the internet and mobile phones its very easy to live in a foreign country without ever integrating or sometimes even bothering to learn the local language.

I'm not saying our culture should stay static and we can't change. But I just don't subscribe to the theory that all cultures are equal or compatible.

Victor

Thaedydal wrote:

Pretty much the same way things are run by the vast majority of mormons in Salt Lake city.

Actually they have all of Utah. They got statehood on condition that they moderate some of their practices, e.g. bigamy.

A town/city where the bylaws are inline with sharia law is not that unfeasible.

It would still need to comply with the Bill of Rights. At which point said townships become private communities.

guildofevil

Yes and two people could come together and agree to settle their differences with a round of golf. That is also perfectly legal, but it does not make the rules of golf a system of law in that country.

It is only a law if it is a legally ENFORCABLE method of settling disputes.

And if all that is meant by sharia law is that Muslims would follow it and not the rest of us, why does it have to be the law of the land? If it doesn't have to be the law of the land, then why isn't it being used in Ireland now? What exactly would change, for the rest of us I mean, in the highly theoretical event that sharia law was implemented in Ireland?

By the way Hobbes, if you think Mick86 is violating the charter, you have the right to warn him, delete his posts, or ban him from the forum. You are the mod, it's your call.

I am however curious as to how exactly he did violate the charter, in your opinion. I have read it and while he sailed pretty close to the wind, he didn't actually violate it.

Hobbes wrote:

True which is why we need to safeguard our democracy now before an alien culture votes it away.

Hence the reason you were warned.

No, you had already warned him and moved the thread to Humanities at that point, so that can't be the reason you warned him. You have cause and affect reversed here.

Also please note that as the post you quoted was written after you moved the thread to humanities, it means that the Islam charter no longer applied when he posted it.

Hobbes wrote:

Read the charter of the forum. Your post was clearly an attempt at your personal opinion stating that people of Islam are a threat and need to be stopped.

Err, no it wasn't. I take it you were talking about this:

Mick86 wrote:

It proves nothing except a glimpse into the attitude of Ireland's Imams. You will note that Ali Selim didn't say Turkey doesn't implement Sharia Law so Ireland won't. And of course there are plenty of Muslim States that do implement Sharia Law. Iran and Saudi Arabia being two such states where pre-medieval laws are still in use. Even Pakistan recently failed to bring it's rape laws out of the dark ages.

1. Personal opinions are not against the charter.

2. He was factually correct about the implementation and non implementation of Sharia law in countries with a Muslim majority. If you have a problem with that, your argument is with reality, not the poster. Stating fact is not against the charter.

3. Sharia law is 1400 years old, thus it is, indeed, pre-medieval.

4. If Pakistani rape law is based on sharia law (no expert me), then it is based on a law from the time period referred to as the dark ages. Again, factually correct.

Expressing views on what an Imam said is not against the charter. If you disagree, I suggest you argue your case rather than just whining vaguely about the charter and dumping the whole thread into someone else's lap.

Bottle_of_Smoke

guildofevil wrote:

By the way Hobbes, if you think Mick86 is violating the charter, you have the right to warn him, delete his posts, or ban him from the forum. You are the mod, it's your call.

I am however curious as to how exactly he did violate the charter, in your opinion. I have read it and while he sailed pretty close to the wind, he didn't actually violate it.



No, you had already warned him and moved the thread to Humanities at that point, so that can't be the reason you warned him. You have cause and affect reversed here.

Also please note that as the post you quoted was written after you moved the thread to humanities, it means that the Islam charter no longer applied when he posted it.



Err, no it wasn't. I take it you were talking about this:



1. Personal opinions are not against the charter.

2. He was factually correct about the implementation and non implementation of Sharia law in countries with a Muslim majority. If you have a problem with that, your argument is with reality, not the poster. Stating fact is not against the charter.

3. Sharia law is 1400 years old, thus it is, indeed, pre-medieval.

4. If Pakistani rape law is based on sharia law (no expert me), then it is based on a law from the time period referred to as the dark ages. Again, factually correct.

Expressing views on what an Imam said is not against the charter. If you disagree, I suggest you argue your case rather than just whining vaguely about the charter and dumping the whole thread into someone else's lap.

It still needed moving, despite not violating the charter. I'd assume the Islam forum is for discussing Islamic beliefs etc...

If Terry Venebles was caught molesting children you wouldn't post about it in the football forum.

The original article - kind of agree. If a Muslim population grew large enough it's up to them to decide how they govern their country. I don't think they'd vote for it though.

Could someone clarify the laws regarding rape in Pakistan - I can't follow the argument properly!

fly_agaric

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Could someone clarify the laws regarding rape in Pakistan - I can't follow the argument properly!

As mentioned already, they were "in the news" recently because Musharraf tried to change them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5337752.stm

Women who claim they were raped have to present male witnesses to the crime and open themselves up to allegations of adultery (and I'd imagine [but having never lived there or spent any time there I don't know for sure] an awful lot of society/peer-pressure blowback about 'asking for it'/being a slut).

Pakistan is a majority muslim country and it is the holier-than-thou religious types who seem to lobby to retain this stuff but I wouldn't know whether such disgusting laws are actually called for by "Islamic law" or whatnot.

Hobbes

guildofevil wrote:

And if all that is meant by sharia law is that Muslims would follow it and not the rest of us, why does it have to be the law of the land? If it doesn't have to be the law of the land, then why isn't it being used in Ireland now?

How do you know it isn't? The best to understand the context of Sharia law is lets say a devout Roman Catholic married couple are having problems with thier marriage. Now rather then going to a marriage counsiller they go to thier local parish priest.

No, you had already warned him and moved the thread to Humanities at that point, so that can't be the reason you warned him. You have cause and affect reversed here.

That was just a comment he had made that was reflective of all his posts. One of which I deleted (and led to his temp ban) was a bit heavier and offtopic.

1. Personal opinions are not against the charter.

They are in the Islam forum. Not here, hence the reason the thread was moved to here so that people could continue to discuss.

Let me give you some example subject lines.
"Sharia laws in Ireland? What does that mean to us?"
"Islam a threat if Sharia laws implemented in Ireland"

The first one would be a reasonable comment in the Islam forum as you have a question about the religon itself. The latter wouldn't. It would be like going into the AH forums and say "I know everyone who posts here are assholes, but I wanted you to comment on this".

The Islam forum is not a forum for people to have a go at the religon.

Pakistani rape law reform is intresting in that its only a generation or so ago that an Irish man couldn't be charged for raping his wife.

guildofevil

Hobbes wrote:

How do you know it isn't? The best to understand the context of Sharia law is lets say a devout Roman Catholic married couple are having problems with thier marriage. Now rather then going to a marriage counsiller they go to thier local parish priest.

I assume it is in use in Ireland, exactly as you describe. I thought that was implied.

The point I was trying to make was that, if sharia law can be used by Muslims without it being the law of the land, then why would the Imam in the article say it would become the law of the land if Islam became the dominant religion in the country? What would be the need?

Hobbes wrote:

No, you had already warned him and moved the thread to Humanities at that point, so that can't be the reason you warned him. You have cause and affect reversed here.

That was just a comment he had made that was reflective of all his posts. One of which I deleted (and led to his temp ban) was a bit heavier and offtopic.

So why didn't you site the reason he was actually banned? Don't you think it is important for everyone to know the limits of acceptability within the forum?

Hobbes wrote:

1. Personal opinions are not against the charter.

They are in the Islam forum. Not here, hence the reason the thread was moved to here so that people could continue to discuss.

Really? Now that is interesting. Where exactly in the charter does it say that? I can't seem to find it.

As a matter of fact, rule 10 states that “Unless a poster has been confirmed beforehand all posts are peoples personal opinions based on knowledge they may supply”. Wouldn't that make all posts against your “no personal opinions” assertion?

Hobbes wrote:

Let me give you some example subject lines.
"Sharia laws in Ireland? What does that mean to us?"
"Islam a threat if Sharia laws implemented in Ireland"

The first one would be a reasonable comment in the Islam forum as you have a question about the religon itself. The latter wouldn't. It would be like going into the AH forums and say "I know everyone who posts here are assholes, but I wanted you to comment on this".

The Islam forum is not a forum for people to have a go at the religon.

Ok. I can see that. I was, however, under the impression that the thread tended more towards the former than the latter, as the topic was about an article in the Irish Independent, about statements made by the Secretary-General of the Irish Council of Imams.

Hobbes wrote:

Pakistani rape law reform is intresting in that its only a generation or so ago that an Irish man couldn't be charged for raping his wife.

So, an unjust Irish law was changed. What's your point?

I know it seems like I'm a dog with a bone here, but I had read the charter and was considering posting some questions when I noticed the thread in question.

I am trying to keep an open mind about Islam, which isn't easy in the current global political climate.

From my reading of the thread, it seemed like you were very close to being oppressive. If there were other posts I didn't see, which were deemed offensive, then I can see why you might ban him, but what I saw in the thread I read did not give that impression.

Hobbes

guildofevil wrote:

If sharia law can be used by Muslims without it being the law of the land, then why would the Imam in the article say it would become the law of the land if Islam became the dominant religion in the country? What would be the need?

He doesn't say that at all. He says if the majority vote for something in a country then why would you not accept it? Isn't that the whole point of voting?

So why didn't you site the reason he was actually banned? Don't you think it is important for everyone to know the limits of acceptability within the forum?

Look this isn't the forum for dicussing the Islam forums charter. If you wish to do so you can either use the feedback forum or the Charter thread in the Islam forum. To answer both your questions it is detailed in the Islam charter why someone is temp banned. Also in relation to what the forum is about -> http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054916453

If I was being oppressive I would just delete/lock the thread rather then move it here so the discussion could continue.

Now if you want to continue this part of the discussion leave it out of this thread. Ok.

guildofevil

You're absolutely right. He didn't say that.

Hobbes wrote:

Incidently Mick, They have Sharia law in England already, its just not allowed to supercede the laws of the land. I recommend you go read up on it.

You did.

I actually see no point in continuing this discussion here in Humanities. The whole point of discussing on the Islam board would be to get some clarification from someone who actually know what they are talking about; i.e. A Muslim.

Having an Atheist and and Agnostic arguing the toss about Sharia law is beyond absurd.

Hobbes

You're absolutely right. He didn't say that.

I was referring to the Iman in the news article.

guildofevil wrote:

I actually see no point in continuing this discussion here in Humanities. The whole point of discussing on the Islam board would be to get some clarification from someone who actually know what they are talking about; i.e. A Muslim.

Then post and ask questions about Sharia law. But as I said you should word it correctly rather then what the OP spammed. If your posting to put forward or try and provoke a negative response then your better off not posting in the Islam forum and doing so here or Politics.

Although as crazy as this seems muslims do read other forums.

Victor

Parts of Sharia law already exist in Ireland - for example "Muslim Mortgages" (lending and borrowing are forbidden in Islam) are offered by Irish banks, so the bank charges a rent and takes a stake in the increase in the value of the property instead of charging interest.

Concilliation and arbitration are means used by parties in disputes to resolve legal situations without using courts (and the attendant delays and publicity). Courts are reluctant to interfere with the decisions of arbitrators.

Canon Law applies in Ireland, but it only applies to Roman Catholics.

A few years ago, a high court judge sat on a case where an Irish person was suing an Australian (insurance company I think) as a matter of convenience as the plaintiff was severly ill. The rules of Australian courts applied.

However there needs to be a clarification between Sharia Law applying in religious and civil cases as against all cases, including criminal.

Sand

Parts of Sharia law already exist in Ireland - for example "Muslim Mortgages" (lending and borrowing are forbidden in Islam) are offered by Irish banks, so the bank charges a rent and takes a stake in the increase in the value of the property instead of charging interest.

In fairness, thats banks simply offering a service designed to appeal to a certain market, like McDonalds offering vegetarian options. Not an example of Sharia law really, no more than McDonalds changing its menu says anything about vegetarianism other than McDs thinks they can wring a bit more of profit margin out of them.

However there needs to be a clarification between Sharia Law applying in religious and civil cases as against all cases, including criminal.

I think the government should never recognise any law system within the borders of the state other than the Irish one. As some other poster noted, if people want to make personal arrangements on the basis of Sharia Law, grand, whatever, but it should hold no more weight with the law of the land than the aforementioned round of golf or a toss of a coin. If it ever becomes an issue that people refuse to co-operate with a police investigation on the basis that its already been settled by reference to Sharia law or whatever, then the government needs to come down like a ton of bricks to stop the development of a parallell legal system.

He doesn't say that at all. He says if the majority vote for something in a country then why would you not accept it? Isn't that the whole point of voting?

I wouldnt accept it if it was illiberal, unconstitutional or plain out regressive. And sharia law ticks the boxes in all three sections. Liberal democracy isnt majority rules.

Pakistani rape law reform is intresting in that its only a generation or so ago that an Irish man couldn't be charged for raping his wife.

Well, I guess that justifies the inhuman system of law facing Pakistani women who are raped. After all, cant complain about the plank in our neighbours eye until we remove the splinter from our own.

Victor

Sand wrote:

I wouldnt accept it if it was ... unconstitutional

But if the people voted for it, it would be constitutional.

Schuhart

Sand wrote:

Well, I guess that justifies the inhuman system of law facing Pakistani women who are raped. After all, cant complain about the plank in our neighbours eye until we remove the splinter from our own.

I’m not a million miles from your sentiment, but I think it is important for us to recognise that the idea of a completely secular state is a reasonably new idea in Ireland. To this day, there are still remnants of religious control in the health and education sectors.

I would not favour the Sharia applying beyond individual choice, and agree with you that the equivalent is just McDonalds offering a veggy alternative. I can decide if I want an Islamic home finance product or a standard interest-charging mortgage. Beyond that, we know what this kind of semi-clerical society is like from our own history, and there is no need to repeat the mistake under a new logo.

I see no problem in answering anyone expressing a desire to see a role for the Sharia in these terms. Clearly, if a majority voted for such a change, then it would simply be the law. But it is right to point out that we would be effectively voting to limit freedom of thought.

I’d take the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam as a starting point to illustrate what I would see as undesirable in wider application of the Sharia – even if it was limited to the Muslim community. I don’t accept that because you are born into a faith that they can own for life.

As I understand it, the Cairo Declaration was produced out of a feeling that the UN Declaration on Human Rights is based on Western values. It seeks to give primacy to the Sharia over the UN Declaration. In practical terms, the elements of the UN Declaration that seem to cause trouble for the Sharia are:

It allows people to change faith from Islam,
It permits freedom of thought that might undermine Islam,
It allows Muslim women to marry non-Muslims,
It demands equality for women, (the Cairo Declarations 'equality of dignity' means 'the little women should be treated as equal as they can be, poor things, but shouldn't do heavy lifting or hard sums'.)
It prevents discrimination in legal rights on the basis of religion.

I don’t know if anyone with a better understanding of the Sharia can comment or correct any errors in the account I’m setting out here. In particular, I've seem some account to the effect that the Sharia is a system of penalties, so some of the things above may be feature of general Islamic doctrine but not strictly regarded as part of the Sharia. That said, if the Cairo Declaration is a reliable statement, then voting for the Sharia seems to be effectively voting to curtail religious freedom.

We have effectively done the same to ourselves in the past – the constitutional ban on Divorce applied to everyone, even those of no faith. That was wrong. So is the suggestion that we should stitch another brand of religion into the statute book.

Sand

But if the people voted for it, it would be constitutional.

Plenty of laws have been voted in and then found to be unconstitutional. You cannot for example pass a law to neuter career scumbags, no matter how popular it might be.

Schuhart

Sand wrote:

You cannot for example pass a law to neuter career scumbags, no matter how popular it might be.

I don't know exactly how such international obligations as we have taken on limit us - i.e. things like the EU treaties and the treaty on the international criminal court. But, so long as it does not conflict with those obligations, I take it the people can amend the constitution to ban gay whales from our territorial seas if they so wish.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Hobbes wrote:

Although as crazy as this seems muslims do read other forums.

No they banned it when an english football hooligan got scared a Muslim who was posting was an extremist who would attch a virus to his pseunydom that crashed the servers of everyone on the board while simultaneaously deleting the online bomber.

It's somewhat depressing but I don't think guildofevil is a troll

Sand

I’m not a million miles from your sentiment, but I think it is important for us to recognise that the idea of a completely secular state is a reasonably new idea in Ireland. To this day, there are still remnants of religious control in the health and education sectors.

I agree, but they are as you say simply remnants. The days of unquestioned clerical dominance over Irish life are over and the Church in Ireland is engaged in a desperate rearguard action to hold on to what it has left. Whilst there is no direct equivlent for the church in the Islamic world, the Pope can only dream of the influence that Islamic scholars have over their nominal adherents.

I don’t know if anyone with a better understanding of the Sharia can comment or correct any errors in the account I’m setting out here. In particular, I've seem some account to the effect that the Sharia is a system of penalties, so some of the things above may be feature of general Islamic doctrine but not strictly regarded as part of the Sharia. That said, if the Cairo Declaration is a reliable statement, then voting for the Sharia seems to be effectively voting to curtail religious freedom.

This is the essential conundrum. Islam can only survive in Europe as a result of Europes secular, tolerant nature. A secular, tolerant nature that has come out of hundreds of years of religious fanaticism and pointless bloodshed, until eventually a truce was called. This respect for others to believe whatever the hell they want no matter how wrong they are is what protects Muslims in Europe. They are not asked to live under Christian religious law for example, nor are they threatened and killed for converting Christians to Islam despite Christians being a majority in practically all European countries.

This system wasnt put in place to specifically protect muslims. It was put in place to protect everyone from fanatics of all stripes. If the day ever dawns that a system of religous law is imposed, even by a majority, then no right thinking person can accept it. Sharia law is regressive and contravenes basic human rights on so many points that it cannot be accepted as being a suitable system of law for muslims and non muslims alike. Its not even a suitable system for male and female muslims given the way its stacked against females.

I sincerly doubt a majority would never look for Sharia law in any particular country - but I fear that in countries like France and the UK/Germany/Netherlands some misguided effort at multiculturalism may lead to the gradual introduction of Sharia law for Muslims. Which would basically place their European citizenship secondary to their religious persuasion and heighten ghettoisation and cultural divisions within states.

We have effectively done the same to ourselves in the past – the constitutional ban on Divorce applied to everyone, even those of no faith. That was wrong. So is the suggestion that we should stitch another brand of religion into the statute book.

100% agree. Weve just recently torn the Churches hands from our throats, foolish to invite some other bunch of fanatics the opportunity to strangle us instead from sheer politeness.