Sharia Law

af_thefragile

Why is Sharia Law frown down upon by the majority of people in the world when they don't even have the slightest clue of what it is?!

People think Sharia Law is all about stoning innocent women to death and chopping off heads and arms and nothing could be further from the truth than that.

If one takes the time to actually find out what Islamic Sharia actually is he'll find out it probably is the most just and sensible system of governance.
Most modern concepts of human rights, ethics, freedom of speech, welfare state and even many notions of women's rights where derived from the Islamic system of governance, the Caliphate, especially the Rashidun Caliphate which was the earliest and considered the finest Caliphate.


Its quite a pity that most muslims themselves have no clue about what the Sharia actually is and how the Islamic state was run during the early Islamic age which was centuries ahead of any other civilization in the world.

The media and people with no clue and knowledge about the Islamic system of governance and Jurisprudence keep constantly defaming it while most muslims can't even retaliate because of their own lack of knowledge.

I think its about time muslims stand up for themselves and what they believe in and respond back to the constant attacks against their religion. Its time muslims put up a voice of their own in the world and stop everyone else speak for them.

philologos

af_thefragile wrote: »

Most modern concepts of human rights, ethics, freedom of speech, welfare state and even many notions of women's rights where derived from the Islamic system of governance, the Caliphate, especially the Rashidun Caliphate which was the earliest and considered the finest Caliphate.

Could you please elaborate on this? If anything I would have thought that the Jewish and Christian traditions had a role in the shaping of these rights, but I would be interested to hear your point of view in more detail.

hivizman

I'm with Jakkass here. I don't want to dispute that common views of Sharia are often simplistic (even using the term "Sharia" in a monolithic sense does not bring out the diversity of interpretation, not only at the level of the different schools of jurisprudence within Islam but also the role of the individual scholar in interpreting Sharia). Too much emphasis is placed on the "hudud" (or required) punishments stipulated for a small number of offences in the Qur'an (many of which can also be found in the Old Testament), and Sharia covers a much wider spectrum of activities.

But you have to remember that there was very little knowledge of Islam in the Western world until the 19th century, and even then it was filtered through the writings of "orientalists". So it is unlikely that ideas on human rights, ethics, freedom of speech and so on that developed in the West in the modern era had much at all to do with the ideals of Islam as embodied in Sharia. Indeed, Muslim modernists of the 19th and 20th centuries often regarded Sharia as backward and as a barrier to enhancing the rights of the individual.

A major issue for Muslims is how far the Qur'an and the Sunnah set out a way of living that should be applied in exactly the same way now as it was when the Prophet was governing Medina (or even when the four "rightly guided Caliphs" were governing over the rapidly expanding Muslim sphere of control in the 30 or so years after the Prophet's death). This problem is illustrated by reference to womens' rights. The general view among both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars appears to be that the revelations of Islam significantly improved the rights and status of women in comparison with the pre-Islamic "age of ignorance" in Arabia, and indeed with what we know of women's rights in other parts of the world at that time. However, does Islam as a religion now restrict women's rights excessively in comparison with the rights available in Western secular societies? Or are the restrictions on women's rights simply cultural phenomena of predominantly Muslim societies that represent corruptions of a true Sharia based on the original sources? Or, a third possibility, that the Qur'an and the Prophet "got it right" - that the rights of women under an interpretation of Sharia that is true to the fundamental sources of Islam are in some sense "optimal" for the best society, and that the modern West has got it wrong?

This is a huge issue, and like Jakkass I'd be interested in Muslim views on the strengths and limitations of Sharia in the modern world.

af_thefragile

Jakkass wrote: »

Could you please elaborate on this? If anything I would have thought that the Jewish and Christian traditions had a role in the shaping of these rights, but I would be interested to hear your point of view in more detail.

The Rashidun Caliphate was the first Islamic Caliphate set up by the companions of Muhammad according to the teachings in the Quran and of the prophet Muhammad and is/was considered as a template for the later Islamic Caliphates to come.
It has little influence from Jewish and Christian traditions as the people who lived there were all of Arab nomadic tribes.

There's a lot your could read about it as a lot of reforms took place from the start of the Islamic Caliphate (around 600AD) till the end of it in late 19th/early 20th century. Each Caliphate with a slightly different system of governance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashidun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_ethics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_Law

Sorry all wiki links. But there's a lot that could be said.

The Islamic Caliphate was completely different from the Islamic states you see today. It was centuries ahead of what was going on in most other civilizations.
While concepts like human rights, womens rights, freedom of speech etc are relatively modern "age of enlightment" 19th-20th century concepts, they were practiced in the Islamic caliphate since the early Rashidun period.

Sorry again from wiki:
"In Islamic ethics freedom of speech was first declared in the Rashidun period by the caliph Umar in the 7th century.[9] In the Abbasid Caliphate period, freedom of speech was also declared by al-Hashimi (a cousin of Caliph al-Ma'mun) in a letter to one of the religious opponents he was attempting to convert through reason.[10] According to George Makdisi and Hugh Goddard, "the idea of academic freedom" in universities was "modelled on Islamic custom" as practiced in the medieval Madrasah system from the 9th century. Islamic influence was "certainly discernible in the foundation of the first deliberately-planned university" in Europe, the University of Naples Federico II founded by Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor in 1224.[11]"

"The "concept of what one might call a welfare state" appeared during the Abbasid Caliphate in the 8th century. The concepts of welfare and pension were introduced in early Islamic law as forms of Zakat (charity), one of the five Pillars of Islam, since the time of Caliph al-Mansur. The taxes (including Zakat and Jizya) collected in the treasury of an Islamic government were used to provide income for the needy, including the poor, elderly, orphans, widows, and the disabled. According to the Islamic jurist Al-Ghazali (Algazel, 1058-1111), the government was also expected to store up food supplies in every region in case a disaster or famine occurred.[7]"

In the earliest centuries of Islam (the Rashidun time) women had a very good position in society. They could work, earn income and make their living. It was only later over the centuries that women's rights were degraded and women were forced to sit at home and stuff due to reasons that had nothing to do with Islam. Many Arab Bedouin (nomadic/tribal people) were too dedicated to their pre-Islamic customs and traditions and resisted change to what the new religion (islam) bought to them.

Most Islamic states nowdays are more influenced by culture and the lack of education than the Sharia.
Hence why I said most muslims themselves have no clue about what sharia is.

KaiserMc

Sharia law is not frowned upon by most people that are not muslim, we just don't give a ****e about it .
Sharia law is being practiced in European countries such as England and Holland but I think it is just used there to sort out minor disputes within the muslim population eg divorce ,family disputes ,none of the amputations or stoning to death of young girls or the hangings of homosexuals and drug dealers that we hear about in the East ,'yet'.
Sharia law has no place in Europe,these people are mostly immigrants in our European countries,muslims have to understand that we in Europe have our 'Own' laws and these are the laws that they need to adhere to.

af_thefragile

hivizman wrote: »

I'm with Jakkass here. I don't want to dispute that common views of Sharia are often simplistic (even using the term "Sharia" in a monolithic sense does not bring out the diversity of interpretation, not only at the level of the different schools of jurisprudence within Islam but also the role of the individual scholar in interpreting Sharia). Too much emphasis is placed on the "hudud" (or required) punishments stipulated for a small number of offences in the Qur'an (many of which can also be found in the Old Testament), and Sharia covers a much wider spectrum of activities.

But you have to remember that there was very little knowledge of Islam in the Western world until the 19th century, and even then it was filtered through the writings of "orientalists". So it is unlikely that ideas on human rights, ethics, freedom of speech and so on that developed in the West in the modern era had much at all to do with the ideals of Islam as embodied in Sharia. Indeed, Muslim modernists of the 19th and 20th centuries often regarded Sharia as backward and as a barrier to enhancing the rights of the individual.

I wouldn't say Western world had very little knowledge of Islam till the 19th century.
Europe learnt a lot from the Islamic world much earlier during the medieval world due to the influence of the Caliphate of Cordoba/Al-Andalus and due to the Crusade campaigns.

A major issue for Muslims is how far the Qur'an and the Sunnah set out a way of living that should be applied in exactly the same way now as it was when the Prophet was governing Medina (or even when the four "rightly guided Caliphs" were governing over the rapidly expanding Muslim sphere of control in the 30 or so years after the Prophet's death). This problem is illustrated by reference to womens' rights. The general view among both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars appears to be that the revelations of Islam significantly improved the rights and status of women in comparison with the pre-Islamic "age of ignorance" in Arabia, and indeed with what we know of women's rights in other parts of the world at that time. However, does Islam as a religion now restrict women's rights excessively in comparison with the rights available in Western secular societies? Or are the restrictions on women's rights simply cultural phenomena of predominantly Muslim societies that represent corruptions of a true Sharia based on the original sources? Or, a third possibility, that the Qur'an and the Prophet "got it right" - that the rights of women under an interpretation of Sharia that is true to the fundamental sources of Islam are in some sense "optimal" for the best society, and that the modern West has got it wrong?

This is a huge issue, and like Jakkass I'd be interested in Muslim views on the strengths and limitations of Sharia in the modern world.

With reference to womens rights, it might not be as liberal and free as the modern 21st society but its definitely not oppressive like what you see in Taliban and other Islamic states either.

Women have full right to work, start a business, take part in politics, make a living and all according to the teachings of Quran and Muhammad.
So you can't say the Sharia is oppressive to women cuz in the Rashidun Caliphate women had a very active role in the society.

Can't say the modern west has got many secular and liberal issues wrong.
If it works in the society fine and everyone's happy about it, there's nothing wrong with it.
During the Rashidun period everyone in general (women included) were happy with the state of the society. That was right.
Right now in the Islamic world, people aren't happy with how culture has overtaken Sharia and that is wrong.

af_thefragile

KaiserMc wrote: »

Sharia law is not frowned upon by most people that are not muslim, we just don't give a ****e about it .
Sharia law is being practiced in European countries such as England and Holland but I think it is just used there to sort out minor disputes within the muslim population eg divorce ,family disputes ,none of the amputations or stoning to death of young girls or the hangings of homosexuals and drug dealers that we hear about in the East ,'yet'.
Sharia law has no place in Europe,these people are mostly immigrants in our European countries,muslims have to understand that we in Europe have our 'Own' laws and these are the laws that they need to adhere to.

Thats exactly the problem.

All people think about sharia law is "amputations, stoning to death of young girls and hanging of homosexuals".

My point is not about weather sharia law should be implemented in Europe or not.

Its about how Sharia Law has been defamed due to the media and people talking about it with little knowledge about it and no one taking the time (especially muslims) to actually find out and understand what it actually is.

I posted this topic in the "Islam" Forum for a reason cuz this topic is for muslim people to ponder over.
Didn't post this is the Politics forum or somewhere else to debate weather Sharia Law should be imposed upon Europe.

No one is asking to change European laws to Sharia law.
Infact the Sharia also states that people must follow the laws of the country they're living in regardless its Islamic or not.

philologos

af_thefragile wrote: »

I wouldn't say Western world had very little knowledge of Islam till the 19th century.
Europe learnt a lot from the Islamic world much earlier during the medieval world due to the influence of the Caliphate of Cordoba/Al-Andalus and due to the Crusade campaigns.

It might seem that modern human rights are based on Islam due to similarities between Abrahamic principles in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. Most of the development on the human rights front seemed to be a progression of the skepticism in society provided by the Reformation. The publication of the Bible was a big factor in awareness of social responsibilities. The Biblical text had been in Latin, only accessible by elites prior to this. Again, that is my thought process, feel free to challenge me with alternative reasoning.

af_thefragile wrote: »

With reference to womens rights, it might not be as liberal and free as the modern 21st society but its definitely not oppressive like what you see in Taliban and other Islamic states either.

Ah, that's your interpretation of the Qur'an. Surely the Taliban and the Saudi religious leaders base their viewpoint on Islamic texts just as much as you do. To be effective in discrediting them you would have to look at the Islamic texts they use and state in a reasoned fashion why their interpretation is mistaken.

af_thefragile wrote: »

Women have full right to work, start a business, take part in politics, make a living and all according to the teachings of Quran and Muhammad.
So you can't say the Sharia is oppressive to women cuz in the Rashidun Caliphate women had a very active role in the society.

Again, one implementation of Islam amongst many.

af_thefragile wrote: »

Can't say the modern west has got many secular and liberal issues wrong.
If it works in the society fine and everyone's happy about it, there's nothing wrong with it.

Can't you? I think on quite a few grounds we have got it wrong. Every cultural system has got some issues wrong. The West is far from a perfect society. Then again a perfect society is only down to peoples interpretation.

af_thefragile wrote: »

During the Rashidun period everyone in general (women included) were happy with the state of the society. That was right.
Right now in the Islamic world, people aren't happy with how culture has overtaken Sharia and that is wrong.

I think for this reasoning to be accurate you would have to show that the people who advocate the views many Westerners find unreasonable are not based on Sharia law, you would have to look at what verses they cite from Islamic texts and find a more accurate interpretation that can be agreed on about it. Otherwise this discussion is fruitless.

Splendour

af_thefragile wrote: »

Why is Sharia Law frown down upon by the majority of people in the world when they don't even have the slightest clue of what it is?!

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html


That's why. I read this morning of 13 year old who was stoned to death because she was raped. I did not 'frown' when I read this, I cried...

Hobbes

Splendour wrote: »

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html

You did read the post about what is most likely to get you banned from this forum? Story from 2005 from an anti-Islam site?

wes

Source watch has some good info on the "American Thinker":

American Thinker
From SourceWatch
Jump to: navigation, search

American Thinker (AT) is a conservative daily internet publication. According to it website, American Thinker presents a "thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans." [1]

There is ample evidence to support the notion that AT serves as part of the right wing's echo chamber.

A good example of this can be found in a December 5th, 2007 piece on the National Intelligence Estimate report on the state of Iran's Nuclear weapon's program.[1]

Writer Ed Lasky first refers to an Editorial in the New York Sun inferring that the intelligence community is against President Bush.[2] Lasky concludes that "the National Intelligence Estimate was cooked up by bureaucrats eager to embarrass George Bush and transform US policy towards Iran." To substantiate his argument he goes on to quote an editorial from the Wall Street Journal[3] which avers the authors of the NIE study are: "former State Department officials with previous reputations that should lead one to doubt their conclusions. All three are ex-bureaucrats who, as is generally true of State Department types, favor endless rounds of negotiation and "diplomacy" and oppose confrontation. These three officials, according to the Wall Street Journal, have 'reputations as hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials'." This statement "Hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials", restated as fact in the AT article, is quoted and requoted by rightwing blogs and news sources throughout the media.[4][5][6]

Ultimately this type of statement winds up being echoed by mainstream pundits such as Rush Limbaugh.[7]

Um hardly what I would call impartial and they seem to be a pack of war mongers too boot, so any claims of moral superiority is rather laughable. They also supported the illegal war of aggression against Iraq, which killed thousands, and supported the IDF murderous assault on Gaza earlier this year. I would take them more seriously, if they didn't happily support the US and her allies engaging in mass murder in the Middle East.

I take it people have tears for children who died after having White phosphorus dropped on there heads?

hivizman

In case those who have only recently begun to follow this forum are not aware of the fact, there have already been two long threads on Sharia law:

Would any of you support Sharia Law in Ireland?, which ran from 7 September to 1 October 2008 (with 73 posts), and Stoning to death and Sharia Law, which ran from 23 June to 22 July 2007 (with 170 posts).

Salvation

Splendour wrote: »

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html


That's why. I read this morning of 13 year old who was stoned to death because she was raped. I did not 'frown' when I read this, I cried...

I dont see it as anti islam but merely the truth SHARIA = BRUTALITY simple as you dont have to be an expert to see it is all about power and barbarity and the fact this forum for Islam should be shut down as it is a voice for a miniority that tries to impose its will on everyone who does not comply...

A bit racist aswell from reading through...Also no Jewish Forum mmmmmm supsect, maybe the Police need a good read through of this and have a look for anything out of the ordinary !!

Hobbes

A bit racist aswell from reading through...Also no Jewish Forum mmmmmm supsect, maybe the Police need a good read through of this and have a look for anything out of the ordinary !!

*sigh*

Others please keep on topic. Thanks.

Bottle_of_Smoke

af_thefragile wrote: »

Why is Sharia Law frown down upon by the majority of people in the world when they don't even have the slightest clue of what it is?!

People think Sharia Law is all about stoning innocent women to death and chopping off heads and arms and nothing could be further from the truth than that.

If one takes the time to actually find out what Islamic Sharia actually is he'll find out it probably is the most just and sensible system of governance.
Most modern concepts of human rights, ethics, freedom of speech, welfare state and even many notions of women's rights where derived from the Islamic system of governance, the Caliphate, especially the Rashidun Caliphate which was the earliest and considered the finest Caliphate.


Its quite a pity that most muslims themselves have no clue about what the Sharia actually is and how the Islamic state was run during the early Islamic age which was centuries ahead of any other civilization in the world.

The media and people with no clue and knowledge about the Islamic system of governance and Jurisprudence keep constantly defaming it while most muslims can't even retaliate because of their own lack of knowledge.

I think its about time muslims stand up for themselves and what they believe in and respond back to the constant attacks against their religion. Its time muslims put up a voice of their own in the world and stop everyone else speak for them.

What do you think the advantages would be in having Sharia Law over Irish/European law?

What would be the main differences?

Sesshoumaru

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

What do you think the advantages would be in having Sharia Law over Irish/European law?

What would be the main differences?

I think the main difference would be that once it is in, you can't change any aspect of it! Since apparently god wrote it herself.

Which is fine if everyone in the country believes in that sort of thing. But that's never going to be the case, human society is not the same as an ant hive. With that kind of rigid system there will always be those who feel oppressed and have no peaceful means to seek change.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/18/hamas-gaza-islamist-dress-code

"It was absolutely illegal," said Dina Abu Dagga, a lawyer who has covered her hair since she was at university in Cairo.

It was not the chief justice's right to change the dress code, she said. Under Palestinian law, that power rested with the lawyers' union.

"We're not against the hijab. I wear it myself," she said. "We're against imposing it and restricting our freedoms. Today you impose the hijab, but tomorrow it will be something else."

I think the above Palestinian lawyer says it all for me. If individuals want to voluntarily use sharia as a basis for resolving disputes or whatever, then I think that's fine. But implementing it on the whole country would be a step too far. Might make some Muslims happy, but it would oppress anyone who didn't believe in Islam. Then what happens when demographics change and some other religion is dominant? Sharia gets replaced by some other religious law system that makes Muslims feel oppressed!

It's better to keep the law system secular so that we can all enjoy as much freedom as possible.

komodosp

Why is Sharia Law frown down upon by the majority of people in the world when they don't even have the slightest clue of what it is?!

People think Sharia Law is all about stoning innocent women to death and chopping off heads and arms and nothing could be further from the truth than that.

I think you answered your own question there.

If one takes the time to actually find out what Islamic Sharia actually is he'll find out it probably is the most just and sensible system of governance.
Most modern concepts of human rights, ethics, freedom of speech, welfare state and even many notions of women's rights where derived from the Islamic system of governance, the Caliphate, especially the Rashidun Caliphate which was the earliest and considered the finest Caliphate.

No matter how good or sensible a system of laws is, it doesn't matter, because it is a system. Laws should be fluid, and reflecting what is right and wrong, and changeable if found to be unjust, and should never be implemented simply because it says so "In Sharia Law".
In other words, even if Sharia Law is the most sensible and just system in the world, and 99% of it is good, then the other 1% must be gotten rid of, not simply kept because we have adopted Sharia Law.
So notions of human rights may have been derived from Sharia Law, but that doesn't mean we should stick with it, rather than simply use them as suggestions, and changing them for what is democratically decided to be correct. No system of laws should be stuck to rigidly, that includes Brehon Laws, English Common Law, Sharia Law, etc.

mcmoustache

The problems people have with Sharia comes from what we see happening in Afghanistann Saudi Arabia, UAE, Northern Nigeria and now Sudan. To us, it just looks brutal and primitive. I know there is more to sharia than stonings and limb-chopping but a family dispute just won't get on the news.

imported_guy

if a punishment is grave, the crime wont occur, if you start giving out capital punishment to pedos, we wont have any pedo bears roaming around, same with robbries, etc etc, if we had capital punishment for nearly every major crime, i GURANTEE you there will be significantly less criminal activities

just my €.02

ChocolateSauce

I haven't read the bible, the Koran or the Communist manifesto, but I don't need to to reject them. I don't need a masters in Greek mythology to know Zeus doesn't exist either. I'm so sorry that I don't know everything about Sharia, but I still reject it as barbaric.

When I see Sharia, I see brutal torture in totalitarian theocracies like Arabia and Somalia- I see 13 year old rape victims being stoned to death for the crime of being raped. Whenever I do pick up a holy book and read a few more pages of it, I like it even less than before, and Sharia is no different; the more I learn, the more I reject. Sure, it has some good parts- so did a lot of bad things throughout history, but if those parts are so good, they can be incorporated into normal law, and the bad parts left out.

I like my laws to be formulated by educated, elected leaders, not illiterate desert warlords from the dark ages.

irishconvert

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

When I see Sharia, I see brutal torture in totalitarian theocracies like Arabia and Somalia- I see 13 year old rape victims being stoned to death for the crime of being raped.

What you are seeing is very selected cases publicised by elements of the media who aim is to turn as many people as possible away from Islam. I have seen videos on the internet of Christians in Kenya actually burning old people alive bacause someone claimed they were practicising witchcraft. Nobody would dream of claiming they represent all Christians.

And stoning a girl to death for being raped is totally against Islam.

irishconvert

Here is a story of a paedophile who has been sentanced to death by beheading for sex attacks on 5 children including a 3 year old boy. Many of the readers comments are backing the punishment and would like to see something similar in Britian for paedophiles

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1225006/Saudi-Arabian-paedophile-beheaded-crucified-string-sex-attacks-including-left-toddler-die-desert.html

Mark Hamill

irishconvert wrote: »

What you are seeing is very selected cases publicised by elements of the media who aim is to turn as many people as possible away from Islam. I have seen videos on the internet of Christians in Kenya actually burning old people alive bacause someone claimed they were practicising witchcraft. Nobody would dream of claiming they represent all Christians.

And stoning a girl to death for being raped is totally against Islam.

When the anti-islam danish politician Geert Wilders came to London a few weeks ago, some of the Muslims protesting where interviewed and they really did not counter his claims that Islam is violent, asthey where giving barely veiled death threats the whole time.
While I sympatise that the media is essentially against you in this regard (either out of religious bias, or just an innate desire to only have the most extreme points if view and therefore the highest selling stories), I dont think your case is helped the lack (or percieved lack) of islamic response coming out against these type of situations and decrying them as unislamic. If the muslims against this extreme behaviour where as vocal as the extremist themselves, then I would think people would be on your side a lot more.

irishconvert

Mark Hamill wrote: »

When the anti-islam danish politician Geert Wilders came to London a few weeks ago, some of the Muslims protesting where interviewed and they really did not counter his claims that Islam is violent, asthey where giving barely veiled death threats the whole time.

How many "Muslims" were there protesting? There are 2 million Muslims in the UK and the majority couldn't care less about the publicity seeking Geert Wilders. I actually live in London and I am too busy with my own life to bother showing up to protest against him.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

While I sympatise that the media is essentially against you in this regard (either out of religious bias, or just an innate desire to only have the most extreme points if view and therefore the highest selling stories), I dont think your case is helped the lack (or percieved lack) of islamic response coming out against these type of situations and decrying them as unislamic. If the muslims against this extreme behaviour where as vocal as the extremist themselves, then I would think people would be on your side a lot more.

The media don't report stories where Muslims condem violence. I listen to the Imams in various mosques week after week speaking out against violence but it never gets reported. Doesn't sell enough newspapers as you said. For example after the 9/11 attacks there were so many statements issued by Muslim organisations condeming the attacks but what gets shown on TV, some staged scene with Muslims burning an American flag.

The media are not interested in talking to the vast majority of Muslims who are peaceful and live everyday ordinary lives.

Mark Hamill

irishconvert wrote: »

How many "Muslims" were there protesting?

40, apparently, all from the "Islam for UK" group.

irishconvert wrote: »

There are 2 million Muslims in the UK and the majority couldn't care less about the publicity seeking Geert Wilders. I actually live in London and I am too busy with my own life to bother showing up to protest against him.

The media don't report stories where Muslims condem violence. I listen to the Imams in various mosques week after week speaking out against violence but it never gets reported.

It doesn't help that the muslims who show up at these protests are the extreme ones, while the ones condeming it are staying in their mosques, condeming violence to other muslims who aren't violent anyway. They really need to be showing up at protests like the one above and standing apart from the extremists and protesting against the extremists. It shouldn't be hard to severely outnumber the 40 extremists who did show up, if the whole of the 2 million remaining muslims are completely against them.

irishconvert

Mark Hamill wrote: »

40, apparently, all from the "Islam for UK" group.


It doesn't help that the muslims who show up at these protests are the extreme ones, while the ones condeming it are staying in their mosques, condeming violence to other muslims who aren't violent anyway. They really need to be showing up at protests like the one above and standing apart from the extremists and protesting against the extremists. It shouldn't be hard to severely outnumber the 40 extremists who did show up, if the whole of the 2 million remaining muslims are completely against them.

Come on Mark, that is a bit unrealistic. Speaking for myself I didn't even know the protest was on. Are you seriously sugesting that I should take a day off work to come out and counterprotest against any small crackpot group decides to have a protest?

Mark Hamill

irishconvert wrote: »

Come on Mark, that is a bit unrealistic. Speaking for myself I didn't even know the protest was on. Are you seriously sugesting that I should take a day off work to come out and counterprotest against any small crackpot group decides to have a protest?

2 million muslims in the uk and 100 couldn't have come out and counter protested? I would say that most non extremist muslims dont like Wilder as his views on Islam are extreme, but none seemed to show up to try prove him wrong. Its not like no-one knew Wilders wasn't going to be there and that there would be some kind of protest on. You cant complain that the only people the media interviews are the extremists when the only people who go to such protests are the extremists. If those extremists stayed at home, like all the non extremist muslims, then they wouldn't be interviewed.

irishconvert

Mark Hamill wrote: »

2 million muslims in the uk and 100 couldn't have come out and counter protested?

How do you know nobody came out and counter protested?

Mark Hamill

irishconvert wrote: »

How do you know nobody came out and counter protested?

I admit that I dont. But if they did they weren't very vocal about it.

ChocolateSauce

irishconvert wrote: »

What you are seeing is very selected cases publicised by elements of the media who aim is to turn as many people as possible away from Islam. .

The media is reporting fact, not "carefully selected", isolated incidences which aim to defame Sharia.

I have seen videos on the internet of Christians in Kenya actually burning old people alive bacause someone claimed they were practicising witchcraft. Nobody would dream of claiming they represent all Christians.

And I would never dream of suggesting that Sharia represents all Muslims. The burning you describe above was an act of brutality, just like the Sharia acts I described.

And stoning a girl to death for being raped is totally against Islam

She was convicted of adultry, which is punishable under Sharia by death.

The media don't report stories where Muslims condem violence

Yes they do. Every time a Muslim commits an act of violence, the papers report the local Muslim representative's groups' condemnation.

imported_guy

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

The media is reporting fact, not "carefully selected", isolated incidences which aim to defame Sharia

yeah lets start watching bill o riley

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

And I would never dream of suggesting that Sharia represents all Muslims. The burning you describe above was an act of brutality, just like the Sharia acts I described

harsh crimes need harsh punishment as i said if we had capital punishment for every crime, we wouldnt have the high crime rates we have now.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

She was convicted of adultry, which is punishable under Sharia by death

it isnt. research before posting your getting annoying now.

http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Stoning4.htm read it

and adultrey is a crime in alot of US states as well punishable with alot of jail time

and in islam you can only be convicted of adultrey is if there are 3 MALE witnesses, or if you confess

you have to be pretty dumb if you confess, or let 3 men watch you having sex.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Yes they do. Every time a Muslim commits an act of violence, the papers report the local Muslim representative's groups' condemnation.

no they dont. they only report nick griffin getting his ass kicked or man handled by a bunch of anti-nazis

ChocolateSauce

imported_guy wrote: »

yeah lets start watching bill o riley

Point taken. Let me rephrase that: The respectable media.

harsh crimes need harsh punishment as i said if we had capital punishment for every crime, we wouldnt have the high crime rates we have now.

Universally, countries with harsh legal systems are habitual human rights abusers. A system like you described would be worse than the USSR under Stalin.

it isnt. research before posting

Well it was just introduced in Indonesia-

NY Times wrote:

Under a new Islamic criminal code that goes into effect this month, the Shariah police will be wielding a new and more potent threat: death by stoning for adulterers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28stoning.html?hp

So, yeah, it is punishable by death under Sharia.

Although it isn't allowed to convict a 13-year old, they did anyway.

no they dont. they only report nick griffin getting his ass kicked or man handled by a bunch of anti-nazis

Well I've certainly seen plenty.

ChocolateSauce

and in islam you can only be convicted of adultrey is if there are 3 MALE witnesses, or if you confess

your a retard if you confess, or let 3 men watch you having sex.

And what if a girl (say, 13) is raped by three men, she reports them, and when questioned they all say it was consentual adultery? Because that's what happened.

imported_guy

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

And what if a girl (say, 13) is raped by three men, she reports them, and when questioned they all say it was consentual adultery? Because that's what happened.

cant be a witness if you take part in a crime

5th ammendment aplies in islam

3 people other than an accused or accuser are required for a conviction

she can win the case if she has 3 witnesses male, or else the 3 males can win if they have 3 witnesses

irishconvert

Ok, I think this debate is getting out of control and is proving the original posters point that people have no real idea what Sharia Law is. Please don't post any more isolated cherry picked examples of human rights violations (which are against the teachings in the Qur'an and the sunnah) and call them Sharia Law.

Thanks.

ChocolateSauce

irishconvert wrote: »

Ok, I think this debate is getting out of control and is proving the original posters point that people have no real idea what Sharia Law is. Please don't post any more isolated cherry picked examples of human rights violations (which are against the teachings in the Qur'an and the sunnah) and call them Sharia Law.

Thanks.

Alright, I won't, I'll just reiterate my original point - I don't need to be intimately familiar with a subject to know it is bogus, I just need to know enough to reject it on good grounds, and the fact that Sharia is based in a religion and cannot be altered is enough to make it unacceptable in its entirety.

Mark Hamill

irishconvert wrote: »

Ok, I think this debate is getting out of control and is proving the original posters point that people have no real idea what Sharia Law is. Please don't post any more isolated cherry picked examples of human rights violations (which are against the teachings in the Qur'an and the sunnah) and call them Sharia Law.

Thanks.

Just for future reference then, what country would you consider to be a good example of Shariah law in action?

imported_guy

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Just for future reference then, what country would you consider to be a good example of Shariah law in action?

no country really has sharia law in action

saudi arabia/uae/iran/pakistan etc all have variations of it, or their own judicial system (in the case of iran/pakistan) same with indonesia/malaysia etc, the only people that use the sharia law to "show off" are the taliban, and they are doinitwrong.

doctoremma

af_thefragile wrote: »

Why is Sharia Law frown down upon by the majority of people in the world when they don't even have the slightest clue of what it is?!

People think Sharia Law is all about stoning innocent women to death and chopping off heads and arms and nothing could be further from the truth than that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8366197.stm

We are having a chat about this on the atheism board. Needless to say, this is why I find Sharia law unacceptable in any civilised and humane society. I couldn't care less how "good" the rest of it might be, this is enough to negate the whole shebang.

irishconvert

doctoremma wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8366197.stm

We are having a chat about this on the atheism board. Needless to say, this is why I find Sharia law unacceptable in any civilised and humane society. I couldn't care less how "good" the rest of it might be, this is enough to negate the whole shebang.

I wonder if you even bothered to read the article you quoted before coming on here looking for a reaction. It is about "al-Shabab's interpretation of Sharia law" (whoever they are).

doctoremma

irishconvert wrote: »

I wonder if you even bothered to read the article you quoted before coming on here looking for a reaction. It is about "al-Shabab's interpretation of Sharia law" (whoever they are).

Yep, I read it all. And I've read many before. And seen the videos etc. I came here to see if anyone was making any comment over it. I found this thread.

Are you saying that Sharia law does not call for the stoning of people who commit adultery? Maybe the judge was bit zealous, employing stoning for someone who was unmarried? But it certainly stands for those who are married at the time of adultery. And it seems that it applies to divorcees as well, who according to a huge swathe of the world, are footloose and fancy-free. And just, stoning!! It had been chosen as a punishment because of the pain and suffering it causes. How can any society think this is just? How much of this is against Sharia law?

irishconvert

doctoremma wrote: »

Yep, I read it all. And I've read many before. And seen the videos etc. I came here to see if anyone was making any comment over it. I found this thread.

Are you saying that Sharia law does not call for the stoning of people who commit adultery?

Certain interpretation of Sharia do call for stoning of people who commit adultery. However in reality it is very difficult for a conviction to take place. There had to be four witnesses so the person would really have to have sex in public. Also they can't be convicted if they were intoxicated at the time or if they are non-Muslim. The ruling is really meant to deter people from commiting adultry, not as a punishment.

Even in this case the judge didn't sentance the man to stoning, only the woman, so he clearly was not following Sharia law.

doctoremma

irishconvert wrote: »

Certain interpretation of Sharia do call for stoning of people who commit adultery.

And here is the answer to the OP as to why people will not accept Sharia law as of any benefit.

irishconvert wrote: »

However in reality it is very difficult for a conviction to take place. There had to be four witnesses so the person would really have to have sex in public.

I don't think I'm wrong in saying those witnesses can witness either the act or a confession of the act. And in a society like this, if four men say a woman is guilty and the woman denies it, who is the judge going to believe?

The above is irrelevant actually. You are admitting people get stoned for a crime that is only a crime to religion, not in international law. I should have stopped with the first comment.

irishconvert wrote: »

Even in this case the judge didn't sentance the man to stoning, only the woman, so he clearly was not following Sharia law.

The man had never been married so did not commit adultery. The woman had been married, hence the charge of adultery, even though she was divorced.

Hobart

I accept that there is little known about Sharia in the west, only that which is fed from the media, and most of that is hyped and skewed to fit an agenda. However, what I do find objectionable is any form of religious punishment which "do call for stoning of people who commit adultery", and any religious who act in the self-belief that they are working for a higher being in carrying out this barbaric religious retribution. It's one particular area of Islam where, I believe, an Islamic Pope would make a huge difference to the religion.

doctoremma

Hobart wrote: »

I accept that there is little known about Sharia in the west, only that which is fed from the media, and most of that is hyped and skewed to fit an agenda. However, what I do find objectionable is any form of religious punishment which "do call for stoning of people who commit adultery", and any religious who act in the self-belief that they are working for a higher being in carrying out this barbaric religious retribution. It's one particular area of Islam where, I believe, an Islamic Pope would make a huge difference to the religion.

Islamic pope: to educate those who don't know much about Islam or to educate those who feck it up beyond humanity?

irishconvert

doctoremma wrote: »

And here is the answer to the OP as to why people will not accept Sharia law as of any benefit.

I did say certain interpretations. Certain interpretations of Christianity in Africa burn people alive for practising witchcraft. It doesn't make all of the other teachings null and void because of it. For example part of sharia law is that Muslims have to donate 1.5% of their wealth to charity each year. Do you think that law should be abolished because some people in Somalia believe in stoning people to death for adultry?

doctoremma wrote: »

I don't think I'm wrong in saying those witnesses can witness either the act or a confession of the act. And in a society like this, if four men say a woman is guilty and the woman denies it, who is the judge going to believe?

Leaving the punishment aside for a minute, if four men in this country stood up as witness in a court of law and said something against one woman, chances are the judge would believe the majority.

doctoremma wrote: »

The above is irrelevant actually. You are admitting people get stoned for a crime that is only a crime to religion, not in international law. I should have stopped with the first comment.

Again, it is an aspect of Sharia that the people in that part of Somalia believe. It is by no means practised by all Muslims, in fact the majority of Muslim countries do not stone people to death. This article is just another example of the anti-Muslim bias in the media.

doctoremma

irishconvert wrote: »

I did say certain interpretations. Certain interpretations of Christianity in Africa burn people alive for practising witchcraft. It doesn't make all of the other teachings null and void because of it. For example part of sharia law is that Muslims have to donate 1.5% of their wealth to charity each year. Do you think that law should be abolished because some people in Somalia believe in stoning people to death for adultry?

I think you're downplaying far too severely here. It's not just a small group of renegades in Somalia who are twisting Islam beyond recognition. This is a wider problem. Muslims should WANT to give money to charity - if it wasn't part of their religious law, are you saying that Muslims would stop giving to charity? re: Christians and witch hunts - just as sickening.

irishconvert wrote: »

This article is just another example of the anti-Muslim bias in the media.

I think you're deliberately whitewashing.

dvpower

irishconvert wrote: »

This article is just another example of the anti-Muslim bias in the media.

Why?
Is it untrue? Is it true but not newsworthy? Was it an isolated case unrepresentative of Islam? Is the BBC an anti Muslim media outlet?

This type of story appears to be an aspect of Islamic culture in some countries. While I'm sure most Muslims would abhor it, the anti Muslim bias you speak of isn't helped by you writing this off as anti Muslim bias.

irishconvert

doctoremma wrote: »

I think you're downplaying far too severely here. It's not just a small group of renegades in Somalia who are twisting Islam beyond recognition. This is a wider problem. Muslims should WANT to give money to charity - if it wasn't part of their religious law, are you saying that Muslims would stop giving to charity? re: Christians and witch hunts - just as sickening.

Your original point is that you don't agree with any of Sharia law due to this stoning in Somalia. I am simply asking the question do you disagree with the sharia law of obliging Muslims to give a percentage of their wealth to charity? Do you think this rule it should be negated?

irishconvert

dvpower wrote: »

Why?
Is it untrue? Is it true but not newsworthy? Was it an isolated case unrepresentative of Islam? Is the BBC an anti Muslim media outlet?

This type of story appears to be an aspect of Islamic culture in some countries. While I'm sure most Muslims would abhor it, the anti Muslim bias you speak of isn't helped by you writing this off as anti Muslim bias.

Can you point me to any positive media stories about Islam? I know you can do a Google search and probably pull up some obscure story but from your memory can you actually remember any positive media store about Islam or Muslims? I certainly can't.

doctoremma

irishconvert wrote: »

Your original point is that you don't agree with any of Sharia law due to this stoning in Somalia. I am simply asking the question do you disagree with the sharia law of obliging Muslims to give a percentage of their wealth to charity? Do you think this rule it should be negated?

My original post was to address the question about why people will not accept Sharia law. It is because, at the far end of the spectrum, Sharia law enables and even promotes some things that most of the world regard as abominations. I understand that many Muslims may feel the same; but Sharia law as it is perceived in the West will always be defined by this type of barbarism. Personally, I think that there are single point issues that can negate a whole system and warrant it unworthy of consideration. I might think, for example, that the BNP have some good economic policies but because of one single issue re: immigration/repatriation, I am prepared to disregard the party as a viable political alternative. People will fear (usually correctly) that to give an inch means losing a mile.

Do I agree re: charity giving. Actually, no, I don't think it's a very good basis for a rule - I think people should give freely according to their own desire and their own means.

I generally don't care how people live their lives, as long as it doesn't bother me and as long as it doesn't contravene the recognised international legal framework that we would all try to live by. However, I have general objections to any religion defining a law so would reject Sharia law along with, say, Christians trying trying to impose laws against homosexuality because God said so. I don't think Sharia law is a model of equality but that accusation might also be levelled at other religious codes. I think that women often don't recourse to a country's law even now, let alone if Sharia law were to become more mainstream.