Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

  • View Poll Results: Which is better for an equal, moral justice system?
    British - It is far superior than Sharia, I do not want Sharia at all. It is not good at all. We must continue with British law and shun foreign laws based on religion.
    82.03%
    Sharia - It is superior, more moral. People should be more open minded to the idea. They may even begin voting for it themselves.
    17.97%

    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Perseveranze)

    Like 99% of the people replying to this thread would never have picked up a book on Shariah.
    I don't need to. Call me odd, but I like a progressive laws which involve debate and reasoning.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ConnorB)
    I don't need to. Call me odd, but I like a progressive laws which involve debate and reasoning.
    there are no objective morals without God.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Skip_Snip)
    Sure these things are immoral, but the blame doesn't fall on the lack of religous-enforced rules
    but these are morals that dont exist in our law system.... there are no objective morals without God.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SexyNerd)
    there are no objective morals without God.
    Yes there are
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SexyNerd)
    but these are morals that dont exist in our law system.... there are no objective morals without God.
    To intentionally damage one's health and commit murder are both illegal, and being a religious zealout can cause either of these, as can alcohol
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SexyNerd)
    but these are morals that dont exist in our law system.... there are no objective morals without God.
    True, but as an athiest I do not believe in objective morals. What is wrong with subjective morals? I would much prefer a system why what it right and what is wrong can be changed as we advance.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    British law isn't really intended to be 'moral', unlike the Sharia law, but I find it much more moral. In my opinion, a law cannot be moral when extremist interpretations of it allow people to stone women and kill gay people... I could go on.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SexyNerd)
    there are no objective morals without God.
    So your reasoning is there must be an objective moral... there has to be! = therefore there is a God?!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    British Law (which it must be noted at least takes some elements from Christianity...the best bits cherry picked as it were) is far superior to any other law and should take precedent in Britain above Sharia law. The idea of law completely based on religion is ridiculous. Sharia law should be abolished from Britain where it exists (and I'm not really sure).
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    You claimed that the 'Flat Earth' belief was, at some point, widespread. I pointed out this was wrong, and you said that didn't matter in the context of the point.
    Yes, context. If not for flat earth, then a geocentric view - you're not getting the point I made.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    I have, and I find it rather abhorrent
    Yeah, you keep believing that.

    You didn't even know the full requirements of Adultery/sodomy. Nor did you know that the four person requirement was based on the act being done in public, in which case even in western law one is able to be persecuted.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    Ah, no, you're attempting to dodge the point again. I agree, most religions outlaw the practice of Homosexuality. As does Islam, don't attempt to wriggle out of it.
    This does not make sense. "I agree", "don't wriggle out of it", what is it that you agree with, yet I'm apparently wriggling out of it???

    (Original post by Steevee)
    I see, so because you find a topic of discussion distatseful, it is outlawed? And you believe you are making a good case for Shariah? :lolwut:
    Again, what? Where did I say "you find a topic of discussion distatseful"?

    Learn to actually quote the text you're replying too.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    This is rather pointless, is it not? The point remains the same. Again, you're trying to twist the point.
    If you say so, what's clear is that you're not even getting the point.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    The point was, as you stated, if someone were caught committing the act by the appropriate number of upstanding citizens, then they would be prosecuted.
    In public, yes. Just as they would get persecuted in western law.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    It being then, that the act is a crime.
    Yes, as it is in western law.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    But your claim is that you would say it's not a crime, so long as the perpetrators are not caught. Which is utterly mad.
    So you just either;

    a) Completely ignored

    b) Were simply not able to comprehend

    my whole explanation about the rights of man and the rights of God in Shariah - basically wasted my time.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    Ahh, so now we're using Islamic accounts of Shariah justice?
    Actually I proved it with a Classical quote that's reflected by the majority of the scholars. The Islamic account, was just an added example.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    I see. But how many Homosexuals and adulterers do you expect have been punished under the guise of Shariah, upon the basis of Shariah, in the name of Islam and Shariah? And on the basis of what? A type of love you do not approve of? How wonderful.
    And how many people have been unjustly tortured, executed, falsely convicted under the guise of democracy, secularism etc.?

    (Original post by Steevee)
    There's no irony, rather you don't understand it. I'm talking about the application of Shariah, not the concept.
    So am I. Not only the comparison with British law, but also the impossibility of persecution of it in Shariah.

    It's you who's not really understanding. The only way you could get in trouble for sodomy, is if you actually want to. No one goes in public and commits sodomy [be it the east or the west]. And no one, unless they actually want to get punished [by their own choice], admits to it.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    I don't think many people are so arrogant as to profess their system perfect,
    It's not "their system" though, Shariah is translated literally; God's law.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    but the religious have the monopoly on such things. And yet we see so many instances of improper Shariah, of new judgements and interpretations in regards to much of Islam and it's scripture. And yet you make the claim that Shariah works perfectly?
    1. I said Shariah is perfect.

    2. That humans are imperfect, and if they actually apply the Shariah in full with sincerity, they would prosper. It's like with anything, the best Muslim can't practice Islam with absolute perfection since humans make mistakes.

    3. That it's morally much better than any system, as this whole topic was about.


    (Original post by Steevee)
    But all evidence points to the opposite.
    You've completly ignored the evidences and points I've made, just repeating yourself.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    So let me re-iterate. If you believe Shariah in concept is perfect, bully for you. But you must agree that there has never been and is highly unlikely to be a perfect application of Shariah.
    Already explained this above, there will never be a "perfect Muslim", but a Muslim who practices his faith to the best of his ability will still be able to prosper.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    Of course not, it is not morally acceptable to spy into other people's homes. But here in the West our first recourse is not to blind the person, or lop off limbs of repeat offenders.
    Actually, in western law, treason (spying) is punishable by execution.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    Though Islam seems to revel in barbarism when it comes to punishments in Shariah.
    If you say so; the difference being the level of punishment and being far more difficult to practically apply. All this leads to better results and a more prosperous society.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    Or rather, your morals are based on a man made religion with the moral values taken from the time and land, along with inherenting other parts of it's moral code from a previous man made religion.
    Says someone who forget having studied the religion, hasn't even picked up a book on Shariah.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    Whereas my morals are based on human experience, compassion and logic.
    Which is my point, your human experience is going to be different to another's. Your feeling of compassion for something, will be different to another, so will your perception of what is logical and what is not.

    This is why I said before, you're just a sheep to your social order, as it changes, so too will you.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    I am glad moral standards change with time, as we progress. I'm glad we no longer lash adulterers, kill apostates, punish people for whom they love or their sexual tendencies.
    If you say so.

    I'm just glad my God given objective morals don't change with time, with social pressure, where one day you can find something right, and the next you could find it wrong. One day you could deem killing a group as normal, and the next you can't. Or that it doesn't endorses the death of millions through drinking, gambling, drugs, abortion or doesn't try to rationalize bestiality, incest.

    I'm not dictated by what my environment or society thinks [which would change in any given time or place]. Rather, my beliefs are based on the One who Created me, you and everything in creation - they aren't something that randomly change based on one's desire, and feelings, rather they're based on truths and objective morals.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    Your objective morality and God are morally abhorrent to me.
    Likewise are your subjective, socially/government driven morals.

    (Original post by james22)
    So it restricts your freedom of speach? That is enough for me to say it is not good.
    And the British Law doesn't? Lol.


    (Original post by ConnorB)
    I don't need to. Call me odd, but I like a progressive laws which involve debate and reasoning.
    Yeah, you're odd. But at least, Dawkins could relate to you;



    Lol.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Perseveranze)
    Yeah, you're odd. But at least, Dawkins could relate to you;



    Lol.
    Good. I'd rather relate to him than you.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ConnorB)
    Good. I'd rather relate to him than you.
    Well, I personally like to avoid ignorance attracting ignorance. But, if you can judge something without knowing anything about it, then good for you.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RealRecReal)
    I'm sure most people have misconceptions about Sharia Law as we will probably see from some posts here. Did you know that under Sharia Law citizens are given free water,gas and electricity?
    Who pays for it ?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Is this supposed to be reasoning why it's supposed to be morally wrong to eat pork?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by posthumus)
    Who pays for it ?
    Allah does, runs a chequing account. And no one needs to work in these sectors because angels manage the whole thing.

    Shariah at its core is an Islamic supremacist legal system where non muslims would be treated as second grade citizens. Why would any sane person in UK want this?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Perseveranze)
    Yes, context. If not for flat earth, then a geocentric view - you're not getting the point I made.



    Yeah, you keep believing that.

    You didn't even know the full requirements of Adultery/sodomy. Nor did you know that the four person requirement was based on the act being done in public, in which case even in western law one is able to be persecuted.



    This does not make sense. "I agree", "don't wriggle out of it", what is it that you agree with, yet I'm apparently wriggling out of it???



    Again, what? Where did I say "you find a topic of discussion distatseful"?

    Learn to actually quote the text you're replying too.



    If you say so, what's clear is that you're not even getting the point.



    In public, yes. Just as they would get persecuted in western law.



    Yes, as it is in western law.



    So you just either;

    a) Completely ignored

    b) Were simply not able to comprehend

    my whole explanation about the rights of man and the rights of God in Shariah - basically wasted my time.



    Actually I proved it with a Classical quote that's reflected by the majority of the scholars. The Islamic account, was just an added example.



    And how many people have been unjustly tortured, executed, falsely convicted under the guise of democracy, secularism etc.?



    So am I. Not only the comparison with British law, but also the impossibility of persecution of it in Shariah.

    It's you who's not really understanding. The only way you could get in trouble for sodomy, is if you actually want to. No one goes in public and commits sodomy [be it the east or the west]. And no one, unless they actually want to get punished [by their own choice], admits to it.



    It's not "their system" though, Shariah is translated literally; God's law.



    1. I said Shariah is perfect.

    2. That humans are imperfect, and if they actually apply the Shariah in full with sincerity, they would prosper. It's like with anything, the best Muslim can't practice Islam with absolute perfection since humans make mistakes.

    3. That it's morally much better than any system, as this whole topic was about.




    You've completly ignored the evidences and points I've made, just repeating yourself.



    Already explained this above, there will never be a "perfect Muslim", but a Muslim who practices his faith to the best of his ability will still be able to prosper.



    Actually, in western law, treason (spying) is punishable by execution.



    If you say so; the difference being the level of punishment and being far more difficult to practically apply. All this leads to better results and a more prosperous society.



    Says someone who forget having studied the religion, hasn't even picked up a book on Shariah.



    Which is my point, your human experience is going to be different to another's. Your feeling of compassion for something, will be different to another, so will your perception of what is logical and what is not.

    This is why I said before, you're just a sheep to your social order, as it changes, so too will you.



    If you say so.

    I'm just glad my God given objective morals don't change with time, with social pressure, where one day you can find something right, and the next you could find it wrong. One day you could deem killing a group as normal, and the next you can't. Or that it doesn't endorses the death of millions through drinking, gambling, drugs, abortion or doesn't try to rationalize bestiality, incest.

    I'm not dictated by what my environment or society thinks [which would change in any given time or place]. Rather, my beliefs are based on the One who Created me, you and everything in creation - they aren't something that randomly change based on one's desire, and feelings, rather they're based on truths and objective morals.



    Likewise are your subjective, socially/government driven morals.



    And the British Law doesn't? Lol.




    Yeah, you're odd. But at least, Dawkins could relate to you;



    Lol.
    I see what you're getting at, but mine was that the 'Flat Earth Myth' is just that, a myth. Which clearly you were unaware of, so far from being correct in context, what you mean is you were incorrect, but the intention of your point stayed the same, an intent only discernable if one were of the same ignorance as you.

    I will, you'd struggle to change it

    I did know the 4 person requirement? So well done there. Equally, it is not that the act must be done in public, rather that one cannot trespass in order to ascertain the act is happening, which is rather different. Equally, in Western law it is the public nature of the act, and not the nature of the act itself which is illegal, a rather marked difference. I'm fairly sure for instance that one may not, in Islam, invade the home of another to discern whether any crime is taking place, and yet you attempt to give this special privildge to the crime in this matter in order to make the Islamic judgement seem other than it is. This is why I accuse you of attempting to wriggle out of the issue. I agreed to the fact that most religions deem Homosexual action wrong. However you seem to be incapable of acknowledging that Islam and Shariah also deem the act iillegal, and instead keep wriggling around the application of the law, rather than the actual law.

    Eugh, I'm paraphrasing, is it not obvious? And I find multi-quoting as you do rather tedious, most seem to be able to understand my posts as they are. But I'll clarify for you. You said that talking of sex and so forth to people is wrong, again, I'm paraphrasing, I'm sure you can clarify if I've misunderstood. And therefore, to talk to 4 people of a Homosexual or extra maritial sexual encounter would be enough to prosecute them. My indignation is that you would then ban speech deemed distasteful because of it's sexual nature? Because, as you are trying to maintain the acts themselves are not wrong unless observed? In either case, it's morally rather questionable.

    This is going nowhere. Public is not the issue. There are a great many circumstances in which the act could be observed beyond pure exhibitionism, and the very fact that talking of the prior act would be enough to deem prosecution further reinforces the point that it is the act, not the observation or public nature of it, which is wrong in Islam and Shariah. Just admit this, it's obvious to everyone, I don't understand why you are trying to hard to wriggle around it.

    But this is a 'perfect' application of Shariah. I can look around the world today and see how many applications of Shariah that are so very far from this perfect ideal? I have no reason to believe any new application of Shariah would be any better than any of those. Infact, I don't doubt we'll be able to use Libya and Egypt as case studies in how fast Shariah warps from it's perfect ideals in new Islamic states.

    I suppose this comes down to whether you believe in your god. Shariah, in my opinion and by all observable evidence, is a man made system. It is applied imperfectly to boot, and is far less moral than the system we have in place at this time. I don't doubt the system we have in place will be deemed less moral than the one we have in 100 years, that is not a problem for me, but as ever with religious people, you fear change as an autistic child does.

    My gosh, what a leap. We've gone from peering into somebody's house to Treason? What a wild attempt to justify the barbaric punishment that you profess is morally correct.

    I've studied your religion to a decent extent, and you're quite correct, I've not read a full book on Shariah. Equally, I haven't read a full book on the justice practices of the Romans, and yet I can still denounce their practices of throwing criminals into pits to fight to the death rather barbaric. My understanding of Shariah is enough to denounce it. The way it makes many things a crime, and the apologists then point to how difficult it is, under perfect application of Shariah, to enforce punishment for those crimes. How wonderfully moral. It's akin to hate speech. If anything, such a justice system only encourages morally bankrupt vigilantism.

    The irony of that little speech is that you are a bigger sheep to a society than I could ever be. You blindly accept the moral standing of 7th century Arabian social order. What makes it more blind is that you do not question this. I look around at the justice system in my modern world and I question, why should this be illegal? What harm does it do? What is the rational behind it? In your justice system if you question, what's the answer? 'God said so', and you'll blindly accept that. Clearly I am the sheep here.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I don't particularly like either, but if I had to choose I'd say British.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Death for apostasy. Rape victims punished. Only an idiot would support sharia law. It would also make the system collapse.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I'm no massive supporter of British Law but it is a million times better than sharia law.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ConnorB)
    So your reasoning is there must be an objective moral... there has to be! = therefore there is a God?!
    the definition of evil is "to be profoundly immoral", but how can there be evil without an objective moral truth, and how can there be an objective moral truth without god.... but no, this is not my ontological argument.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.