This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Non-Muslims would you?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by walking in sand
So sharia courts, even if implemented, would only have jurisdiction over civil disputes between (solely) muslim parties, where both (/all) parties voluntarily agree to being subject to such jurisdiction?
Yes, although the question of "choice" is rather shaky in many cases given the intimidations and pressures that exist in such communities to go to the Sharia courts.
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
Yes, although the question of "choice" is rather shaky in many cases given the intimidations and pressures that exist in such communities to go to the Sharia courts.
Agreed. It would only serve to foster more insularity in the Muslim community in the UK, which benefits no one.
Original post by FluffyCherry
I don't see the point of asking this question when they aren't even following sharia law ??
Muslims are the only ones expected to follow Sharia Laws not non-Muslims. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), wrote the Charter of Medina in which Muslims were held to Shariah Law, and Jews to the Law of the Torah.
Not a single non-Muslim was held to Shariah because Shariah itself forbids compulsion.
The Qur'an clearly says, "There is no compulsion in religion" [2:257]
Muslims are the only ones expected to follow Sharia Laws not non-Muslims. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), wrote the Charter of Medina in which Muslims were held to Shariah Law, and Jews to the Law of the Torah.
Not a single non-Muslim was held to Shariah because Shariah itself forbids compulsion.
The Qur'an clearly says, "There is no compulsion in religion" [2:257]
Since muslims like to talk context and narratives to everybody. Do you know the context behind that verse? When a Jewish tribe (Banu-an-Nadir) was kicked out of Arabia (by Mohammed PBUH), there were some women of Ansar who vowed to convert their sons to Judaism if they lived. So the children were basically sons of people who helped the prophet (ansar), educated in Jewish schools. When the mothers said 'we don't want to leave our children' - then it was revealed that "Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from error". So this only applies to Jews and Christians (as they were monotheists anyway) and also that they have been warned that Islam is the correct path, and they will be condemned to hell-fire without Islam (and all the fear-mongering threats in the Quran). However, it does not apparently apply to polytheists and athiests - and it SEEMS that it does NOT apply to apostates too... if we are going to quote Quran verses... 9:29 "Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled." and 9:5 "And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful" ...
Finally, if there is no compulsion in religion (and assuming Islam is just a religion and not a political ideology)... why are there blasphemy and apostasy laws?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by chemting
X
Good post. Repped.
I would kick up a right fuss purely on the law's association.
Original post by chemting
Finally, if there is no compulsion in religion (and assuming Islam is just a religion and not a political ideology)... why are there blasphemy and apostasy laws?
Perhaps a reference point for these laws may be useful?
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
Yes, although the question of "choice" is rather shaky in many cases given the intimidations and pressures that exist in such communities to go to the Sharia courts.
Could you quantify the number of people that were intimidated and pressured into attending Sharia councils?
Original post by mkap
However countries where there is Sharia Law have low rates of adultery, babies out of wedlock, less drug abusers, rapists and thefts (please don bring in the IS argument) compared to western countries where you have children who don't know who there father is.
Have you got any evidence for this?
Original post by nverjvlev
There are many flaws with this reasoning, even ignoring the grammatical ones. Just because a law is in place doesn't mean that people will magically stop breaking said law. Murder is illegal. Do people get murdered? Yes. Did making murder illegal stop people being murdered? No.
Also, imposing a muslim law would cause huge revolts from islamophobic people groups and political movements such as UKIP and Britain First, if it even got voted in in the first place.
What elements of sharia law do you think qualify it for replacing our existing legal framework? Assuming for a moment that it could be implemented sucessfully.
Surely if it is 'less strict' then it isn't sharia law? What elements do you plan on modifying to achieve this reduction in severity? Do you therefore think sharia law is too severe for western society?
Also, imposing a muslim law would cause huge revolts from islamophobic people groups and political movements such as UKIP and Britain First, if it even got voted in in the first place.
What elements of sharia law do you think qualify it for replacing our existing legal framework? Assuming for a moment that it could be implemented sucessfully.
Surely if it is 'less strict' then it isn't sharia law? What elements do you plan on modifying to achieve this reduction in severity? Do you therefore think sharia law is too severe for western society?
Imposing Islamic law in he UK would cause revolts by most people full stop, not just so-called islamophobic people.
Original post by TheArtofProtest
Perhaps a reference point for these laws may be useful?
Apologies, I only posed that as a question. But according to PewReseachCentre, 70% of MENA (Middle-east North Africa) criminalise blasphemy, and 60% of MENA countries criminalise apostasy (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/05/28/which-countries-still-outlaw-apostasy-and-blasphemy/). Now I agree, the 'rigidness' of these laws differ from country to country and it would take a long time to go through all of them. So let's look at Pakistan as an example, according to its penal code: 295-C "Use of derogatory remarks, etc; in respect of the Holy Prophet. Whoever by words, either spoken or written or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine", 298-B "Use of derogatory remarks, etc..., in respect of holy personages. Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo or insinuation, directly or indirectly defiles a sacred name of any wife (Ummul Mumineen), or members of the family (Ahle-bait), of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), or any of the righteous caliphs (Khulafa-e-Rashideen) or companions (Sahaaba) of the Holy Prophet description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." and imo, the worst 298-C "Persons of Qadiani group, etc, calling himself a Muslim or preaching or propagating his faith. Any person of the Qadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves Ahmadis or any other name), who directly or indirectly, posses himself as a Muslim, or calls, or refers to, his faith as Islam, or preaches or propagates his faith, or invites others to accept his faith, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation or in any manner whatsoever outrages the religious feelings of Muslims, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years ans shall also be liable to fine." The last one is not only against non-muslims, but for sects within the muslim community (imagine the outrage if there was a law saying minorities in the UK cannot propagate their religion!). I could talk about many specific cases but that'd be too long.
Now as for scripture reference, as far as I know, the Quran does not say much on blasphemy, it is more covered in the Hadith. For example, Bukhari (59:369) accounts for the murder of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, who wrote verses that prophet Mohammed (pbuh) found insulting. So the prophet ordered the murder the poet. Also, Bukhari (4:241) also said that Those who mocked Muhammad at Mecca were killed after he had retaken the city and asserted his authority. The schools of islamic jurisprudence differ from each other regarding this (with the most extreme asks for the death penalty), however I can agree that the ones that most people follow don't ask for that as it has been revised, however they do want some form of laws. Now blasphemy laws are used by many religions (Christianity and Judaism in particular) so it does not only apply to Islam, so I am not picking on one religion. Another thing to note that blasphemy laws have been used as a political tool but Sharia is political anyway.
Now this is becoming too long so I won't go into apostates in scripture - but I'll leave a quote from Dr Zakir Naik (famed Islamic scholar) ""One group of scholars, they say that if a Muslim, if he becomes a non-Muslim [inaudible] he should be put to death. There is another group of scholars who say that if a Muslim becomes a non-Muslim and propagates his new faith against Islam then he should be put to death. I tend to agree more with the second group of scholars, who say that a Muslim, if he becomes a non-Muslim and propagates his new faith against Islam, that is the time this penalty is applied."
Original post by Hydeman
Good post. Repped.
Thank you
Original post by AlwaysWatching
One law for all..
what's wrong with (at least) Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, Hinduists, Buddhists, Taoists, Scientologists, Satanists, Atheists, Pastafarians and Jedi Knights having their own laws, their own courts and their own legal systems, separated from the official one ?
yes, as a result there would be huge unemployment among judges, clerks, lawyers etc not trained in those specific systems, but I'm sure that with a couple hundred million quid they could all be retrained and usefully employed
I thank you for your response but I request that in future, if you could not post a wall of text, and instead split your post into manageable chunks, that would be most helpful.
I'm grateful that you cut your post short for you were starting to discuss issues which were not at all related to your earlier post, nor to the question posed.
Whilst it's useful to have background information (i.e: countries where apostasy and blasphemy are offences), it's perhaps something that I do not feel worth discussing.
I don't quite understand the point that you are trying to make.
You've provided (59:369), what I understand to be a Hadith but nothing in that tells me that there exists a law to that effect.
Also (4:241) suggests that there was some kind of "prophecy" (or for those of us who are rational, some kind of lucid dream) which "foretold" the death of certain people, who may or may not have perpetrated those actions.
Now, I ran a couple of those names through Google (I'm not as knowledgeable as you, of course) but it seems they all met their demise on the battlefield of "Badr" (which was Muhammad's first war), and not when Muhammad conquered Mecca, as you claimed.
At this moment in time and from what little I do understand about the source of Sharia, I am really skeptical that the two references that you have posted form the basis of apostasy and blasphemy laws in Islam, for they are extremely weak and only tangentially linked.
It seems to me like he is expressing his preference but based on what, I don't know because you haven't provided a reference.
All you've done is simply expressed an opinion, though thankfully that which is contrary to this person, without substantiating it with the very thing that I requested, references.
Original post by chemting
Apologies, I only posed that as a question. But according to PewReseachCentre, 70% of MENA (Middle-east North Africa) criminalise blasphemy, and 60% of MENA countries criminalise apostasy (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/05/28/which-countries-still-outlaw-apostasy-and-blasphemy/). Now I agree, the 'rigidness' of these laws differ from country to country and it would take a long time to go through all of them. So let's look at Pakistan as an example, according to its penal code: 295-C "Use of derogatory remarks, etc; in respect of the Holy Prophet. Whoever by words, either spoken or written or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine", 298-B "Use of derogatory remarks, etc..., in respect of holy personages. Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo or insinuation, directly or indirectly defiles a sacred name of any wife (Ummul Mumineen), or members of the family (Ahle-bait), of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), or any of the righteous caliphs (Khulafa-e-Rashideen) or companions (Sahaaba) of the Holy Prophet description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." and imo, the worst 298-C "Persons of Qadiani group, etc, calling himself a Muslim or preaching or propagating his faith. Any person of the Qadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves Ahmadis or any other name), who directly or indirectly, posses himself as a Muslim, or calls, or refers to, his faith as Islam, or preaches or propagates his faith, or invites others to accept his faith, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation or in any manner whatsoever outrages the religious feelings of Muslims, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years ans shall also be liable to fine." The last one is not only against non-muslims, but for sects within the muslim community (imagine the outrage if there was a law saying minorities in the UK cannot propagate their religion!). I could talk about many specific cases but that'd be too long.
I'm grateful that you cut your post short for you were starting to discuss issues which were not at all related to your earlier post, nor to the question posed.
Whilst it's useful to have background information (i.e: countries where apostasy and blasphemy are offences), it's perhaps something that I do not feel worth discussing.
Now as for scripture reference, as far as I know, the Quran does not say much on blasphemy, it is more covered in the Hadith. For example, Bukhari (59:369) accounts for the murder of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, who wrote verses that prophet Mohammed (pbuh) found insulting. So the prophet ordered the murder the poet. Also, Bukhari (4:241) also said that Those who mocked Muhammad at Mecca were killed after he had retaken the city and asserted his authority. The schools of islamic jurisprudence differ from each other regarding this (with the most extreme asks for the death penalty), however I can agree that the ones that most people follow don't ask for that as it has been revised, however they do want some form of laws. Now blasphemy laws are used by many religions (Christianity and Judaism in particular) so it does not only apply to Islam, so I am not picking on one religion. Another thing to note that blasphemy laws have been used as a political tool but Sharia is political anyway.
I don't quite understand the point that you are trying to make.
You've provided (59:369), what I understand to be a Hadith but nothing in that tells me that there exists a law to that effect.
Also (4:241) suggests that there was some kind of "prophecy" (or for those of us who are rational, some kind of lucid dream) which "foretold" the death of certain people, who may or may not have perpetrated those actions.
Now, I ran a couple of those names through Google (I'm not as knowledgeable as you, of course) but it seems they all met their demise on the battlefield of "Badr" (which was Muhammad's first war), and not when Muhammad conquered Mecca, as you claimed.
At this moment in time and from what little I do understand about the source of Sharia, I am really skeptical that the two references that you have posted form the basis of apostasy and blasphemy laws in Islam, for they are extremely weak and only tangentially linked.
Now this is becoming too long so I won't go into apostates in scripture - but I'll leave a quote from Dr Zakir Naik (famed Islamic scholar) ""One group of scholars, they say that if a Muslim, if he becomes a non-Muslim [inaudible] he should be put to death. There is another group of scholars who say that if a Muslim becomes a non-Muslim and propagates his new faith against Islam then he should be put to death. I tend to agree more with the second group of scholars, who say that a Muslim, if he becomes a non-Muslim and propagates his new faith against Islam, that is the time this penalty is applied."
It seems to me like he is expressing his preference but based on what, I don't know because you haven't provided a reference.
All you've done is simply expressed an opinion, though thankfully that which is contrary to this person, without substantiating it with the very thing that I requested, references.
Original post by mariachi
Oh come on...
what's wrong with (at least) Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, Hinduists, Buddhists, Taoists, Scientologists, Satanists, Atheists, Pastafarians and Jedi Knights having their own laws, their own courts and their own legal systems, separated from the official one ?
yes, as a result there would be huge unemployment among judges, clerks, lawyers etc not trained in those specific systems, but I'm sure that with a couple hundred million quid they could all be retrained and usefully employed
what's wrong with (at least) Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, Hinduists, Buddhists, Taoists, Scientologists, Satanists, Atheists, Pastafarians and Jedi Knights having their own laws, their own courts and their own legal systems, separated from the official one ?
yes, as a result there would be huge unemployment among judges, clerks, lawyers etc not trained in those specific systems, but I'm sure that with a couple hundred million quid they could all be retrained and usefully employed
I, for one, don't mind people being allowed to exercise their religious obligations as long as it does not fall afoul of British law.
If people, in these communities, would like to establish their own councils, where they all abide by their own codes, deferential and subordinate to the British legal system, then one really doesn't see an issue with that.
Of course, I also support a decentralized governmental system where power and authority is devolved to local people as much as possible as individuals are more knowledgeable, and therefore largely responsible for the actions that they choose to undertake.
I also think that the purpose of the state is not to dictate to us how we should live our lives, or by what measures we are deemed valuable to society, but to simply ensure that we live as part of a community where peace reins.
Original post by TheArtofProtest
the purpose of the state is not to dictate to us how we should live our lives, or by what measures we are deemed valuable to society, but to simply ensure that we live as part of a community where peace reins.
the only issue is about the degree of detail in which this should happen
Original post by TheArtofProtest
If people, in these communities, would like to establish their own councils, where they all abide by their own codes, deferential and subordinate to the British legal system, then one really doesn't see an issue with that
If people, in these communities, would like to establish their own councils, where they all abide by their own codes, deferential and subordinate to the British legal system, then one really doesn't see an issue with that
we are talking about overarching legal arrangements, which would deal at the same time with family, commerce, contracts, working schedules, dress, rituals etc etc
Having separate legal systems in all those areas would only deepen the isolation of some communities, and worsen the rifts in society
Original post by mariachi
the State ensures that we live as part of a community where peace reigns exactly by dictating to us how we should live our lives
the only issue is about the degree of detail in which this should happen
the only issue is about the degree of detail in which this should happen
I am not advocating a total abandonment of government but rather, as less intrusion of the state as possible.
Tell me, how exactly would subordinate personal governance systems (acknowledging and adhering to the supremacy of British law) would subvert the concept of peace in our communities?
Original post by mariachi
we are not talking here about voluntary "codes of discipline" or "deontology codes", which are common in the professions, in Universities, in fact, in most organisations and trades
we are talking about overarching legal arrangements, which would deal at the same time with family, commerce, contracts, working schedules, dress, rituals etc etc
Having separate legal systems in all those areas would only deepen the isolation of some communities, and worsen the rifts in society
we are talking about overarching legal arrangements, which would deal at the same time with family, commerce, contracts, working schedules, dress, rituals etc etc
Having separate legal systems in all those areas would only deepen the isolation of some communities, and worsen the rifts in society
You keep referring to "legal arrangements" as if the concept I am advocating is anything different to what you have mentioned, in reference to organisations/trades and indeed universities.
We are simply taking that exact concept, and applying it to the members of a community to may adhere to a particular way or live by a certain conduct.
The only difference is that the codes of conduct are influenced directly by those who choose to attend the university or find employment at a particular organisation, within the confines and to the primacy of British law.
Original post by ViewsFromSi6
Imagine a less stricter version of sharia law be implanted. Crime will decrease considerably. Would you be happy?
No we are westerners we do not want muslim ideas
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
