12 Feb 08
Originally posted by serigadowelllllll..
are you afraid of the 100 lashes?
I was more wondering how we could get the various proponents to agree on the differences between Baptist Law, Catholic Law, Atheist Law, Buddhist Law, Hindu Law, Quaker Law, Jehovah's Witness Law, Mormon Law etc etc
12 Feb 08
http://www.ntpi.org/html/whyoppose.html
The Sharia should be opposed for its imposition of theocracy over democracy, its abuse of human rights, its institutionalized discrimination, its denial of human dignity and individual autonomy, its punishment of alternative lifestyle choices, and for the severity of its punishments.
In the west, in countries that have a sizable Muslim population, there have been calls for the Sharia to be adopted for the Muslim community. These calls should be vigorously opposed; the Sharia conflicts with many basic human values, such as equality before the law, that punishments should be commensurate with the crime, and that the law must be based on the will of the people. The Sharia as it developed in the first few centuries of Islam incorporated many pre-Islamic Middle-Eastern misogynist and tribal customs and traditions. The Sharia was developed not only from the Holy Quran but incorporates legal principles from other sects. We may ask how a law whose elements were first laid down over 1,000 years ago can possibly be relevant in the 21st century. The Sharia reflects the social and economic conditions at the time of the Abbasids and has become further and further out of touch with later social, economic, technological, cultural and moral developments. The principles of the Sharia are inimical to moral progress, humanity and civilized values.
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesNot Islam by itself. Want to compare with atrocities done by Christians? I think Christians are worse.
Islam is a scourge.
"An Islamic court in Nigeria yesterday upheld a sentence of death by stoning for a woman accused of adultery. The case is the latest in a series of sentences passed under sharia law"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/20/qanda.islam
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by snowinscotlandThe idea is to only allow muslims the option of using sharia for civil disputes or arbitration for muslims when they opt for it.
welllllll..
I was more wondering how we could get the various proponents to agree on the differences between Baptist Law, Catholic Law, Atheist Law, Buddhist Law, Hindu Law, Quaker Law, Jehovah's Witness Law, Mormon Law etc etc
They already have this option for catholics and jews so why not muslims and Hindus etc?
Personally I think they should get rid of it all.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by snowinscotlandLet me guess, you never read his speech, either? He does not say that the adoption of parts of Sharia law is "unavoidable." Rather,
*muse* Now that the adoption of parts of Sharia law is "unavoidable" in Britain, why should we not just go the whole hog and adopt all religous law?
"If what we want socially is a pattern of relations in which a plurality of diverse and overlapping affiliations work for a common good, and in which groups of serious and profound conviction are not systematically faced with the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty, it seems unavoidable."
He argues that the loyalties of disparate religious and social communities are tested between their own internal laws and the laws of the state.
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by Conrau Klet me guess, you didn't read my second comment...
Let me guess, you never read his speech, either? He does not say that the adoption of parts of Sharia law is "unavoidable." Rather,
[quote]"If what we want socially is a pattern of relations in which a plurality of diverse and overlapping affiliations work for a common good, and in which groups of serious and profound conviction are not systematically f ...[text shortened]... and social communities are tested between their own internal laws and the laws of the state.
😉
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by snowinscotlandFor me it goes like this:
welllllll..
I was more wondering how we could get the various proponents to agree on the differences between Baptist Law, Catholic Law, Atheist Law, Buddhist Law, Hindu Law, Quaker Law, Jehovah's Witness Law, Mormon Law etc etc
A country has a constitution. The laws made in the country are made according to that constitution. People must follow it always. If they're not happy, they free to protest and form a movement to try to change it... If they can't, they can always leave the country if they're not willing to accept the majorities decision.
If someone from a different country comes, he must know what's he coming for: laws and rules. He can't just come and impose his own laws. Even if there's a minority. Religious law or whatever, it can't be imposed by the minority.
Same way goes the other way around. We don't have nothing to do with laws of other countries. If they want to follow the Sharia, that's up to them. They have their system and are happy with it. We have no right to criticize it. It's their country, their culture. If I ever went there, I would follow their law respectfully. I hope everyone does the same when coming to my country.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI think it is a good idea. In Australia, our courts are over-burdened with petty cases that could have been resolved through a programme of mediation.
The idea is to only allow muslims the option of using sharia for civil disputes or arbitration for muslims when they opt for it.
They already have this option for catholics and jews so why not muslims and Hindus etc?
Personally I think they should get rid of it all.
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by Conrau KI'm not saying that you get rid of mediation.
I think it is a good idea. In Australia, our courts are over-burdened with petty cases that could have been resolved through a programme of mediation.
I'm saying that you get rid of religious law binding mediation.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesFascinating.The wikipedia entry for sharia law argues that there is no canonical version of the Sharia law, and that different schools of juriprudence offer diverse interpretations of what the Sharia actually is.
The case is the latest in a series of sentences passed under sharia law"