Is Sharia Law vs British Law - Which is more moral?

Common misconception actually.

In your belief, here we have these things called liberty and tolerance, rationality and so forth. They cropped up a few hundred years ago during what's known as the 'Enlightenment', which has to do with Christianity. Islam has not undergone such a phase, which is sad.

But being gay and acting upon it is perfectly legal. In Shariah it is not.

You can try and spin it however you want,

if 4 people come upon 2 or more engaged in Homosexual action, then they have grounds for prosecution.

Under Shariah it is the act which is illegal, not the place.

And regardless of this, a bigger issue is the fundamental lack of morality surrounding legislating against something such as that, and adultery and so on.

So killing babies is moral? Just because a religion says so? It may be deamed a nessessary evil to torture an animal for the benefit of humans but every sane human would agree torturing an animal for no reason is morally wrong.

You blindly follow the morals of your god but what makes them right opposed to the morals of any other god?

Well, British law allows us to do pretty much anything we choose, as long as we don't seriously injure, kill, or steal from others. And people don't get executed for being gay.

Yeeaaah, close call

Yeaaaaaah, because it is moral to lie, commit adultery, intentionally damage ones health, allow the consumption of alcohol (90% crime alc related, 80% all murderers were under the influence, its the substance in the grapes that makes wine good for you, not the alcohol, hence beer isnt good for you)..... ect.... YEAHHHHHHHHH!

Not within the point of the context.



1. I'd argue that Islamic enlightenment came 1400 years ago, even if it no longer exists to that degree today.

2. Things such as bestiality, porn, drugs etc. isn't something everyone would consider "enlightenment". Again, it really would depend on who you ask.

3. Also, when it comes to Christianity, it doesn't speak highly of its legitimacy if humans are able to constantly change and manipulate its regulations.



It cannot be "illegal" in Shariah to be gay in the sense of what you're attracted to, as you would have no control over it. What would be illegal is acting upon it in public.

It would also be illegal to do it in private, but this is considered haqq-Allah, the rights of God; and thus, it's not punishable under Shariah provided you don't go around boasting about your acts, or make a self confession to it on four separate occasions.



Not a spin, just what the majority of the Islamic scholars in 14 hundred years have stated. It would be nice if you had ever picked up and read a book on the subject to not make yourself look more ignorant.



The four person rules has never been achieved in 1400 years. The reason is this;

1. These four people would have to be of upright character [no bad reputation, no previous criminal acts etc.]

2. They'd have to have seen the act in public. In a private property, their testimony would get rejected and they would get in trouble for "spying". It's legal, that if someone spied through a hole into your house, you could poke their eyes out.

3. They would have to leave the Qadi (judge) no room for doubt [ie. They're friends, or relatives etc. as to giving chance to a conspiracy]

4. They would actually have had seen the sexual act take place. As some scholars would describe [for adultery, but also applies to sodomy], that the actual witness would need to have seen ; "Kohl needle entering the Kohl bottle"

5. They would need to report the incident immediately, any considerable delay would be rejected, unless the Imam was distant from them.

6. If any of them takes their testimony back before the actual punishment is carried out, the whole case is also dropped.

There may be other factors that I'm forgetting. The whole basis of the above is on "doubt", if there's any doubt when it comes to hadd punishments, then the case cannot go ahead.



Already explained this above.



Already debated morality and the issue of it from a social perspective. Read the thread.



Keep talking based on your emotion, it's clear you just can't debate.

It cannot be "illegal" in Shariah to be gay in the sense of what you're attracted to, as you would have no control over it. What would be illegal is acting upon it in public.

It would also be illegal to do it in private, but this is considered haqq-Allah, the rights of God; and thus, it's not punishable under Shariah provided you don't go around boasting about your acts, or make a self confession to it on four separate occasions [which is strongly discouraged in itself].

So you cannot mention your sex life if you are gay? Also what does acting on it in public mean precisely?

Morality is all about what's right and wrong which is all about people's emotions!

Not within the point of the context.



1. I'd argue that Islamic enlightenment came 1400 years ago, even if it no longer exists to that degree today.

2. Things such as bestiality, porn, drugs etc. isn't something everyone would consider "enlightenment". Again, it really would depend on who you ask.

3. Also, when it comes to Christianity, it doesn't speak highly of its legitimacy if humans are able to constantly change and manipulate its regulations.



It cannot be "illegal" in Shariah to be gay in the sense of what you're attracted to, as you would have no control over it. What would be illegal is acting upon it in public.

It would also be illegal to do it in private, but this is considered haqq-Allah, the rights of God; and thus, it's not punishable under Shariah provided you don't go around boasting about your acts, or make a self confession to it on four separate occasions.



Not a spin, just what the majority of the Islamic scholars in 14 hundred years have stated. It would be nice if you had ever picked up and read a book on the subject to not make yourself look more ignorant.



The four person rules has never been achieved in 1400 years. The reason is this;

1. These four people would have to be of upright character [no bad reputation, no previous criminal acts etc.]

2. They'd have to have seen the act in public. In a private property, their testimony would get rejected and they would get in trouble for "spying". It's legal, that if someone spied through a hole into your house, you could poke their eyes out.

3. They would have to leave the Qadi (judge) no room for doubt [ie. They're friends, or relatives etc. as to giving chance to a conspiracy]

4. They would actually have had seen the sexual act take place. As some scholars would describe [for adultery, but also applies to sodomy], that the actual witness would need to have seen ; "Kohl needle entering the Kohl bottle"

5. They would need to report the incident immediately, any considerable delay would be rejected, unless the Imam was distant from them.

6. If any of them takes their testimony back before the actual punishment is carried out, the whole case is also dropped.

There may be other factors that I'm forgetting. The whole basis of the above is on "doubt", if there's any doubt when it comes to hadd punishments, then the case cannot go ahead.



Already explained this above.



Already debated morality and the issue of it from a social perspective. Read the thread.



Keep talking based on your emotion, it's clear you just can't debate.

i'VE often wondered myself. If we took a look at Sharia, would we like it? should we be more open minded to it?

That doesn't even make sense?

Have you heard of this thing? It's called progress, it is a forward path, it is not always perfect, but how many thousands of years did it take to outlaw slavery? Is that progress? I believe so. For how long did all sorts of discrimination live as the norm? And now we are moving away from it. Personal liberty, over illogical moral abhorrence on the basis of delusion and text, that is progress.

See, so the act is not legal.

Wich in itself is very wrong to me.

One legally cannot talk about making love to another man in Shariah? What madness is it that you call this moral?

Make myself look ignorant? I've merely illustrated what you have admittied! That to act upon one's homosexual urges, should one have them, is illegal. It's like saying dealing drugs is not illegal, so long as noone catches you.

It's like saying dealing drugs is not illegal, so long as noone catches you.

The 4 person rule has never been achieved?

Perhaps, and yet how many homosexuals have been punished under Shariah? How many adulterers?

How many female victims of sex crimes? Of course now, you'll vainly assert 'But woe! That is not true, proper and perfect Shariah!'

But that is a moot point, no justice system works perfectly, some of the very accusations you and other Muslims level at our justice system are because it does not work perfectly, to expect it to is madness.

But this aside, again I say, to even suggest that sexual intimacy between lovers is something that constitutes a crime is morally bankrupt.

Also, you're suggesting to put out the eye of someone looking into your house is morally and legally acceptable?

We fundamentally disagree on the nature of morality.

Of course it does, what can't you understand?



Yup, it's called Islam. Study it.



Don't take the meaning of what I said out of context. We're talking punishments here, otherwise most religions outlaw acting on homosexuality.



It's not to me, it's pretty clear Shariah isn't trying to punish people, but rather to deter them.



Or woman, or a man and a woman etc. And read my post in full, who would not have anything better to do than to hear about your sex life?



And I've corrected you in regards to what context.



In Islamic law, there's Haqq-Allah (right of God), and then there's haqq al-aadami (right of man). The former is between you and God, and you're not suppose to admit to it or talk about it in public - if you admitted it, you're suppose to retract your statement. For example, in the case of fornication/adultery/sodomy;

It is recommended for the one who commits zina to conceal his mistake and not tell anyone about it. Rather, he or she should turn to Allah in sincere repentance. It is not necessary or recommended to confess at an Islamic court and face the hadd punishment, and if someone did confess, it would be recommended for them to withdraw their confession and not be punished (Tuhfat al-Muhtaj + Hashiyat Abd al-Hamid, 9.113).

^As far as I'm aware, the above has happened before, I believe it was during 14th century, two adulterers admitted to adultery, then retracted their statement before the punishment. The Qadi (judges) then produced a fatwa stating that anyone who kills them has committed murder (second biggest sin in Islam). I'll see if I can find the reference for elaboration on it.

The latter (haqq al-aadami) is against the people, such as theft etc. which is something you can't retract your statement in, unless it's absolutely proven that you made your testimony in distress/force.



Nope, never in Shariah has it been achieved.



It would be very discredited to use something like Iran to make your point. Up until the Caliphate 1924, the amount of adulterers executed would be countable with your fingers, all of them, self-confessions. No idea about homosexuals, would be even rarer.



The irony of this statement of someone who doesn't even know what Shariah is.



I believe Shariah works perfectly. Even if humans are imperfect, as long as the humans adhere and enforce it with sincerity, that civilization is bound to prosper, corruption is bound to decrease, along with the enormous deaths thanks to alcohol, drugs, smoking, abortions etc. wealth distributed and so on.



Based on what exactly?



So you're saying it's morally acceptable [without any standards mind you] to spy in the homes of other people?



Except, my morals are based on الْعَالَمِينَ (Lord of the Worlds), One, who knows humans and objective morals better than anyone else. Whilst your morals are based on an ever changing social order, created by man. In 10 years time, what you thought today was morally right may change, in 20 years time, it may change back and so on.

First question; no. You're not allowed to talk about your sex life even if you're straight, it's indecent.

Second question; Read my post.




Lol.

i'VE often wondered myself. If we took a look at Sharia, would we like it? should we be more open minded to it?

First question; no. You're not allowed to talk about your sex life even if you're straight, it's indecent.

Second question; Read my post.




Lol.

If they are not abstract please explain why eating pork or blood is morally wrong. Please don't say because Allah says so.

Jesus at least make an unbiased poll and a coherent thread title.