What is Sharia Law
- Thread starter Angst
- Start date
The main issues seem to occur if it's not possible to 'opt out' easily. If people want to opt in, then that's what freedom is.
Sharia strictly applies to Muslims only, so non-Muslims have an automatic opt-out. Traditionally the only exceptions are when a non-Muslim came into conflict with a Muslim, or when a Muslim becomes a non-Muslim. The latter makes it difficult to opt-out if you are already a Muslim, considering that the punishment for apostasy traditionally is death.
I believe the apostasy thing came about in order to save the nascent Caliphate from fragmentation immediately after Muhammad's death. Haroon may want to expand/correct me on this.
Right, yeah, I meant opting out through apostasy, mainly. Who wants to get punished for drinking in a secular society?
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
An opting-out that specifies that doing such will yield an overall inferior bundle of rights is also severely problematic if we are talking about traditional problems. Plus, I'm not sure you can really consider something to have an effective opt-out clause at all if somebody can be born ''in'' and there are significant punishments for leaving.
Quackers
The Frog
I know full well about the Jewish courts operating in the UK.
Get back to me when Panorama starts making documentaries about how woman are bullied in these Jewish courts. At this point there is no paralel with the limited Sharia we have.
For some reason you cannot accept that full Sharia law is discriminatory towards woman, non-believers and homosexuals. Everytime I bring it up, i am met with whataboutery. In this thread already, what about southern baptists, presbyterians? What about the Jewish courts? Why is it impossible to criticise without a slimy smear that i'm overlooking wrong western practices?
The last few days have proven. It is impossible to have a sensible debate.
Not surprising when one side is bent on bending reality to fit their own preconceived ideas.
The punishments for leaving is an interesting case. If the punishments are said to 'kick in' after you leave, then they cannot kick in, because they're kicking in on someone who does not consent to being subject to the law.
The sequence just doesn't logically allow punishment. It's like someone saying "If you fly to another country to live, I will shoot you". Um, yeah, you can't. By the time I'm in another country, I'm outside the range of your pistol.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
I would say it possible to have this sort of thing by continual consent, but it's going to need oversight by the superior governance of the state. It makes me nervous the same way those kiddie-fornicating cults make me nervous. Namely, that they are vulnerable to the temptation of degrading fundamental rights without 'clean' and active consent.
MilesGregarius
Half-baked Renegade
Let's see, how about Orthodox men holding their ex-wives as matrimonial hostages by refusing to grant them a Get.
Are you truly that concerned with women's equality, or are women's rights just a convenient excuse for you to indulge in some Islam-bashing? Can we expect to see you defending gay rights as vigorously when it's the Bible, instead of the Q'uran, being used to justify oppression?
Quackers
The Frog
I'm referring to the UK.
If Jewish courts here begin to discriminate heavily against woman than I will be in full support to ban them. In fact, i'm uneasy about their existence right now Orthodox Judasim in some aspects seems to be just as regressive as Islam.
See, this is exactly what I mean. My intentions are never pure, it is all about me trying to abuse Muslims because i'm a bigot.
Why not take my posts at face value rather than assume i must be some nazi?
Not even going to justify the rest of your post.
It can, but you really have to squint and read selectively. Basically engage in quote-mining. It's much clearer that early Quran compilers intended death for apostasy.
Your intention may be pure and you can still be a bigot. You can genuinely believe your bigotry is morally righteous and generally good for the world, like the perpetrators of the Atlantic slave trade, the Stolen Generation, innumerable ethnic clensings, and on and on it goes.
Early Hadith compilers certainly did. The Quran is uncreated, and there is no unambiguous verse in there about executing apostates. On the other hoof, "There shall be no compulsion in religion" (2:256) is quite unambiguous.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
I'd be perhaps willing to accept Sharia law (on an opt-in basis), but on the one clear understanding - that if Sharia law is to have any legal value in Canada, it must do so under the aegis of the Canadian constitution, including the Charter of Rights, and subject to the rights guaranteed by the Charter. Including (but not limited to) non-discrimination, equality before the law, no unfair deprivation of freedom, free speech, and freedom of religion.
As such, for example, elements of Sharia law that are discriminatory toward women would have to be skipped, or applied in a way that is egalitarian.
As such, for example, elements of Sharia law that are discriminatory toward women would have to be skipped, or applied in a way that is egalitarian.
uncreated? Huh? I think that all evidence points to the Quran being compiled after Muhammed's death.
No, that's quote-mining, it's a sentence amongst paragraphs. I'll grant you, it's a net good that your interpretation has become popular. In context, it more clearly means "Allah does not force you to believe", it's more about free will than anything else, and thus gives 'moral permission' to Allah to punish those who choose not to abide by Allah's laws. Yes, this conflicts with other verses, elsewhere, but the Quran is nothing if not schizophrenic. The majority of Christians believe in Free Will despite God hardening Pharoah's heart. The books aren't internally consistent.
I'll stand by the Quran more clearly being 'pro-execution' when it comes to apostates, just like the Bible is more clearly pro-execution of practicing homosexuals and idolaters. There's a reason why most Imams believe the same, because it's the most clear. Why do you think those Hadith survived? Because they fit with the message that the compilers believed were in the Quran.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
edit: nevermind.
H4run
Deity
you are correct, there is no a single verses in Quran that order death penalty for the punishment of apostasy, in contrary there are many verses that even indicate the person who return back forward from faith to disbelieve and repeat again to faith then disbelieve without any given command for execution. Take for example this verse:
"believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers, but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) turn back." (Quran, 3:72)
It told in this verses they were became Muslims in the morning and turn to kufr or disbelieve at the day however there is no further command regarding execution for the apostate.
Or this verse:
"Behold, as for those who come to believe, and then deny the truth, and again come to believe, and again deny the truth, and thereafter grow stubborn in their denial of truth — Allah will not forgive them, nor will guide them in any way." (Quran, 4:137)
This even indicate the action already done couples of time, which indicate there is no punishment for such action in this world the punishment are in the after life.
If El-Machine want to argue otherwise he should check up the argumentation between Muslims who pro death penalty for disbeliever or with the contra death penalty, both are agree there is no such account in the Quran however such account exist within the hadith. This is something that already a fixed terms if there are any single verses in Quran that command death penalty for apostasy of course the pro death penalty already quoted as a main argument, that is a debated between someone who memorize the Quran by heart. But if El-Machine know better than us and those hafiz (those who remember the Quran with their mind perfectly) regarding our own book, then he free to prove himself by quoting the verse of the Quran that ordering the Muslims to killed the apostate.
However to be fair, the Quran order the Muslims to wage war those who wage war against the Prophet or themselves (Quran, 5:33), which is logically acceptable of course anyone have right to defend themselves from war and occupation.
And some ulama, like Yusuf Qardhawi for example, interpretate the hadith that command to execute the apostate because at that time apostasy mean deserting from the Muslims to the polytheist Arabs tribes that was in war with the Muslims at that time. And deserting troops are pretty much punished to death even now in modern time.
Again to support TK point (as he quoted the Quran) here is another verses regarding there are no compulsion in religion:
There is no compulsion or coercion in religion, as Allah says:
"And say: 'The truth is from your Lord,' so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve." (Quran, 18:29)
"Let there be no compulsion in religion." (Quran, 2:256)
"And so (O Prophet): admonish them; your task is only to admonish. You cannot compel them (to believe.)" (quran, 88:21-22)
"If they surrender (to God), then truly they are rightly guided, and if they turn away, then behold, your duty is no more than to deliver the message." (Quran, 3:20)
H4run
Deity
Compiled not created, the Quran already there they just compile the already existence Quran. I think this topic give me a nostalgy of years ago memory when debating with Masada regarding the very same subject
Similar threads
