Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Islamic asylum seekers in Germany threaten to kill Christians watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okey)
    Sharia Law is optional to be applied to very specific circumstances (and it's debated what it even is.)
    I'm sorry but you are all over the map.

    Sharia law is the official legal code of Saudi Arabia. They have no other legal code, it is the basis of every decision by every Saudi judge in every case, with direct reference to the Quran and hadiths.

    Other countries have sharia in varying degrees. And you seem to be falling for the No True Scotsman fallacy. Sharia isn't what some Western fellow traveller believes it would be ideally; sharia is what it is practiced as. Saudi judges call it sharia, it is based on Islamic scriptures, therefore it is sharia.

    It represents a fundamental misunderstanding of religious law and a definitional and category error to claim "Well, they don't practice it properly according to the 'objective' way it should be practiced". Utter nonsense, the only "objective" way would be what "god" truly wants. Given god doesn't exist, that leaves you to accept that sharia is a manmade system and it consists of its actual practice in the real world.

    If you want to see sharia being practiced in the real world, you can either go to Saudi Arabia or the Islamic State. Either way, there are a considerable number of elements of Islamic law that are non-controversial and agreed across the Sunni world (some elements relating to inheritance, zakat etc)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okey)
    Finally, you've done it.

    This is what most right wing garbage
    Calm down, dear. You're going into hysterics and lashing out, inaccurately as it happens. I'm a socialist. I'm also an atheist, which means I oppose all religious nutbaggery. If anything, you are the far-right winger given you are defending a murderous system that kills women and gay people.

    doesn't take into account- the period of time the Qur'an was written for. These verses have to be contextualised
    That assumes that there is some kind of objective truth about the Quran, some "true" interpretation. The fact is that it is filled with violent verses, and like any religion so constructed, there will be adherents who take those verses for violent purposes. That is precisely what you would expect would happen with any manmade religion,

    do you realise the state of the Middle East before the Qur'an was revealed?
    Revealed? You mean made up, right? As to the state of the Middle East, I know that before Mohammed there were native Jewish tribes in Arabia. They had lived there for centuries quite happily.

    After Mohammed rose up as a warlord, he executed all the males of a Jewish tribe, including 15 year old boys and 70 year old men. He then enslaved the women and children.

    I suppose some people might think that wiping out all the Arabian Jews is an improvement. I don't.

    Regardless of this, we don't see anyone complaining of the equally horrific verses the bible puts forward
    Pure whataboutery. The Bible is indeed filled with heinous nonsense. The rather obvious distinction is that I don't see any gay people being put to death based on Biblical law. I don't see Christian religious police patrolling Western nations demanding women cover up. I don't see the New Testament being cited in the High Court.

    Sharia is actually practiced in many Islamic countries in varying degrees, and it is a terrible and regressive legal system. You appear determined to justify and defend it based on a laughable far left PC attempt to seem right-on and Islamo-friendly.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    I'm sorry but you are all over the map.

    Sharia law is the official legal code of Saudi Arabia. They have no other legal code, it is the basis of every decision by every Saudi judge in every case, with direct reference to the Quran and hadiths.

    Other countries have sharia in varying degrees. And you seem to be falling for the No True Scotsman fallacy. Sharia isn't what some Western fellow traveller believes it would be ideally; sharia is what it is practiced as. Saudi judges call it sharia, it is based on Islamic scriptures, therefore it is sharia.

    It represents a fundamental misunderstanding of religious law and a definitional and category error to claim "Well, they don't practice it properly according to the 'objective' way it should be practiced". Utter nonsense, the only "objective" way would be what "god" truly wants. Given god doesn't exist, that leaves you to accept that sharia is a manmade system and it consists of its actual practice in the real world.

    If you want to see sharia being practiced in the real world, you can either go to Saudi Arabia or the Islamic State. Either way, there are a considerable number of elements of Islamic law that are non-controversial and agreed across the Sunni world (some elements relating to inheritance, zakat etc)
    I understand that Sharia is the legal code of Saudi Arabia, but you have to understand that Saudi Arabia and Dubai cannot logically be representative of the wider Muslim world.

    We know a few countries with problems (Saudi, Dubai, Pakistan etc.) and we know many without (Malaysia, Bangladesh, Turkey etc.) How do you argue that Islam is causative of any problems that exist? I don't see any pattern let alone causation. You simply have no argument.

    And as for the straw man fallacy, you have to ask whether this is relevant when looking at the evidence. There is simply no pattern there. If you were to have credible evidence that in a large proportion of Islamic countries there are similar issues compared to a large proportion of non-Islamic countries without- then you'd have an argument. Fortunately, that is not the case.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    Calm down, dear. You're going into hysterics and lashing out, inaccurately as it happens. I'm a socialist. I'm also an atheist, which means I oppose all religious nutbaggery. If anything, you are the far-right winger given you are defending a murderous system that kills women and gay people.



    That assumes that there is some kind of objective truth about the Quran, some "true" interpretation. The fact is that it is filled with violent verses, and like any religion so constructed, there will be adherents who take those verses for violent purposes. That is precisely what you would expect would happen with any manmade religion,



    Revealed? You mean made up, right? As to the state of the Middle East, I know that before Mohammed there were native Jewish tribes in Arabia. They had lived there for centuries quite happily.

    After Mohammed rose up as a warlord, he executed all the males of a Jewish tribe, including 15 year old boys and 70 year old men. He then enslaved the women and children.

    I suppose some people might think that wiping out all the Arabian Jews is an improvement. I don't.



    Pure whataboutery. The Bible is indeed filled with heinous nonsense. The rather obvious distinction is that I don't see any gay people being put to death based on Biblical law. I don't see Christian religious police patrolling Western nations demanding women cover up. I don't see the New Testament being cited in the High Court.

    Sharia is actually practiced in many Islamic countries in varying degrees, and it is a terrible and regressive legal system. You appear determined to justify and defend it based on a laughable far left PC attempt to seem right-on and Islamo-friendly.
    You're making so many claims as to the use of Sharia Law in courts as if it really is a problem for the Muslim world. Please (this is your chance to make some sense), explain to the rational world on what premise you come to the conclusion that Islam is causative to problems in the Muslim world (this doesn't mean just Saudi and Dubai.)

    Any try to keep any irrelevant atheist nonsense to yourself.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Germany should send the riffraff ones back the ones caught or stick them in gurantanomo bay
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    http://www.welt.de/print/wams/politi...utschland.html (Chrome did an auto-translate for me that came out quite well)

    It's a very sad story. In the refugee centres, the Muslim asylum seekers are bullying the Christians, and if they see them not praying during one of the five prayer events of the day, they attack them. They make statements like, "Wherever we go, sharia is in effect".

    This situation is just getting worse and worse. The Germans are a tolerant people; given their history in World War 2 and the Third Reich period, they have tried so hard to atone for their crimes, not just in monetary reparations but in consciously changing their social values to more progressive beliefs. They have gone above and beyond to be accepting, open-minded and welcoming to foreigners of all descriptions over the last 50 years.

    But the current situation has spun out of control. Some estimates say perhaps 1.5 million "refugees" (in quotations because under the refugee convention one has an obligation to seek asylum in the first safe country, not the most desirable country). A million and a half in one year is a number beyond any imagining, in terms of the practical difficulties of absorbing, housing, feeding these people. It would be a population increase of close to 2% just from a single influx.

    Merkel's decision to throw open the gates, and the EU's utter failure to take necessary measures (perhaps a temporary reintroduction of border controls), is deeply irresponsible. Nobody can truly predict the consequences of these decisions, and undoubtedly there will be many unintended consequences.

    Leaving aside the awful consequences for innocent Germans who have been thrown out of their homes to make way for asylum seekers, it is also without a doubt a decision that will fan the flames of the far right, and lead to big electoral gains. Is that what we want? No, but EU officials and Merkel appear incapable of taking the situation in hand.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okey)
    We know a few countries with problems (Saudi, Dubai, Pakistan etc.) and we know many without (Malaysia, Bangladesh, Turkey etc.) How do you argue that Islam is causative of any problems that exist? I don't see any pattern let alone causation.
    "I don't see", she says. There are none so blind as they who will not see.

    Isn't it interesting that the countries with fewer problems (Turkey, Malaysia, Bangladesh) are the more secular countries, and the countries with more problems, more oppression, more misery (Saudi Arabia, Iran) are the ones who base their entire society on Islamic scripture.

    So yes; there is a clear causative element there. The more a country leaves behind Islamic superstition, as did Turkey under Ataturk, the faster it is able to develop and modernise.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okey)
    You're making so many claims as to the use of Sharia Law in courts as if it really is a problem for the Muslim world.
    You seem to be confused. You claim to abhor the approach of the Saudi courts to women (after first denying there was any problem at all), and then you make statements like "as if it really is a problem".

    Of course it is a problem. The Quran is full of violent, regressive verses. This means that any judge who is so inclined will be able to pick out a verse that suits his sadistic personality.

    Thankfully, with a modern, rigorous, secular legal system, we in England don't have to face the possibility that a High Court judge will just pick out from caselaw a precedent saying "Cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers".

    In any case, it is clear that your religious delusion viz. Islam means that you are too emotionally invested to think clearly about this subject. And this isn't singling out Islam; if I were speaking to a Christian who was defending some Christian biblical court (not that they exist, but if they did), I would say the same thing. That he was too emotionally invested and clearly cannot argue rationally.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    "I don't see", she says. There are none so blind as they who will not see.

    Isn't it interesting that the countries with fewer problems (Turkey, Malaysia, Bangladesh) are the more secular countries, and the countries with more problems, more oppression, more misery (Saudi Arabia, Iran) are the ones who base their entire society on Islamic scripture.

    So yes; there is a clear causative element there. The more a country leaves behind Islamic superstition, as did Turkey under Ataturk, the faster it is able to develop and modernise.
    The golden age of Islam had the entire Islamic world based entirely from Islamic scripture, and was secular. They accepted challenges to their belief and developed it through that, so it is entirely possible- regardless of whether it's being done presently, therefore there cannot be a fundamental causation on that premise.

    I will say though, that you're more intelligent that the last guy, who could barely string a sensical sentence together.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    This is why Britain should only accept Christian refugees
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    You seem to be confused. You claim to abhor the approach of the Saudi courts to women (after first denying there was any problem at all), and then you make statements like "as if it really is a problem".

    Of course it is a problem. The Quran is full of violent, regressive verses. This means that any judge who is so inclined will be able to pick out a verse that suits his sadistic personality.

    Thankfully, with a modern, rigorous, secular legal system, we in England don't have to face the possibility that a High Court judge will just pick out from caselaw a precedent saying "Cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers".

    In any case, it is clear that your religious delusion viz. Islam means that you are too emotionally invested to think clearly about this subject. And this isn't singling out Islam; if I were speaking to a Christian who was defending some Christian biblical court (not that they exist, but if they did), I would say the same thing. That he was too emotionally invested and clearly cannot argue rationally.
    (I'm not a woman and I'm not a Muslim.)

    Based on what you've just said, we can deduce that the problem isn't with the Quranic text (as equally violent verses are present in the bible) that it is with a secular legal system. The only thing theoretically separating the two items in your comparison is that one has a secular system (the non violent) and the other has a non-secular system. Both however, have equally regressive religious texts. This isolates the legal system as the problem rather than the religious text.

    Also, your last point would mean that nobody of a particular faith can defend that faith because they're "too emotionally invested". Sorry but that is preposterous, it would mean that anyone who belongs to a label has their word less valued than the opposition. Wow.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okey)
    The golden age of Islam had the entire Islamic world based entirely from Islamic scripture, and was secular.
    What on earth are you talking about it being secular? The Islamic golden age was during the time of the caliphs (i.e. no separation of mosque and state; the caliph is the head of the religious and temporal power structures, and the legal system is based on religious scripture).

    I'm sorry but your historical knowledge appears to be lacking. If you speak to any well-read Muslim they will tell you that Islam does not really conceptualise the separation of mosque and state in the traditional Western sense.

    In any case, your reasoning is flawed. To claim that because Islam was consistent with various forms of progress in the 8th century therefore means it is not a hindrance to progress in the 21st century is incoherent. It doesn't logically follow.

    As for causative factors, they are self-evident. If you look at Islamic State, everything they do is based on a Quranic citation. The various unusual punishments and executions they inflict aren't just random (for example, throwing homosexuals off tall buildings). They are directly taken from the Quran.

    As a matter of causation, but for the Quran would Islamic State have hurled the homosexual from the tall building? The answer can only be no, therefore my case is proved. Game, set and match.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    What on earth are you talking about it being secular? The Islamic golden age was during the time of the caliphs (i.e. no separation of mosque and state; the caliph is the head of the religious and temporal power structures, and the legal system is based on religious scripture).

    I'm sorry but your historical knowledge appears to be lacking. If you speak to any well-read Muslim they will tell you that Islam does not really conceptualise the separation of mosque and state in the traditional Western sense.

    In any case, your reasoning is flawed. To claim that because Islam was consistent with various forms of progress in the 8th century therefore means it is not a hindrance to progress in the 21st century is incoherent. It doesn't logically follow.

    As for causative factors, they are self-evident. If you look at Islamic State, everything they do is based on a Quranic citation. The various unusual punishments and executions they inflict aren't just random (for example, throwing homosexuals off tall buildings). They are directly taken from the Quran.

    As a matter of causation, but for the Quran would Islamic State have hurled the homosexual from the tall building? The answer can only be no, therefore my case is proved. Game, set and match.
    very true i ****ed up this one
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okey)
    (I'm not a woman and I'm not a Muslim.)

    Based on what you've just said, we can deduce that the problem isn't with the Quranic text (as equally violent verses are present in the bible) that it is with a secular legal system.
    Except that the Quran itself self-referentially prescribes its own doctrines as a system of law. The more you adhere to what the Quran requires, the worse things are.

    The only thing theoretically separating the two items in your comparison is that one has a secular system (the non violent) and the other has a non-secular system. Both however, have equally regressive religious texts.
    What separates the two is that the secular society is willing to ignore the violent verses, whereas the non-secular society does not and it follows the Qurans instructions to treat its decrees as law. Therefore, the more you follow the actual underlying text, the worse things are. The less you follow the underlying text, the better things are. Seems pretty simple.

    If things are better when you don't follow the text, and worse when you do follow the text, what does that say about the underlying text?

    Also, your last point would mean that nobody of a particular faith can defend that faith because they're "too emotionally invested". Sorry but that is preposterous
    What religion are you, out of interest?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    Except that the Quran itself self-referentially prescribes its own doctrines as a system of law. The more you adhere to what the Quran requires, the worse things are.



    What separates the two is that the secular society is willing to ignore the violent verses, whereas the non-secular society does not and it follows the Qurans instructions to treat its decrees as law. Therefore, the more you follow the actual underlying text, the worse things are. The less you follow the underlying text, the better things are. Seems pretty simple.

    If things are better when you don't follow the text, and worse when you do follow the text, what does that say about the underlying text?



    What religion are you, out of interest?
    No religion.

    But you are ignoring that there can and are different interpretations of all religious texts, which as an alternative yet equally valid explanation why not every Muslim is an extremist/ why there is such variation of the degree of problems faced by Muslim countries.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okey)
    (I'm not a woman and I'm not a Muslim.)
    Do you consider yourself left-wing (if you're not you can ignore this)? If you are, I know because of your opposition to the War on Terror and Israel you think you should be more favourable to Muslims, that you don't want to join people in piling on. You might think that it's right-wing to be opposed to Islam as a religion. But that's just not true. I'm a socialist, and I oppose Islam because it's regressive, not because some right-wing newspaper told me to (and notice that the right is happy to use Islam when they want to oppose gay marriage and the like)

    But surely you must see that the actual underlying texts of Islam are causing real suffering, in the real world? Surely you must see that, like all religions, Islam is fundamentally regressive and extremely injurious to the rights of women, sexual minorities and others? That it promotes an "us and them" mentality?

    The distinction is that I know of no country where today Christianity is used to justify executing gay people (in fact, the only countries that prescribe the death penalty for homosexuality are Islamic countries). I know of no Christian countries where women are treated as poorly as they are in Islamic countries by and large.

    As I said, I oppose all religion. But Islam right now is the most conservative, the most regressive and the most aggressive religion. Its most conservative fascistic adherents are on the march. It behooves those on the let not to ally themselves with religious fascists
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okey)
    Ok, let's take a look at what you've just replied. First, an article of one incident that occurred in Dubai, and suddenly this is representative of the wider Muslim world. No, that is representative of one incident that occurred in Dubai, nothing more nothing less. Same story for Saudi Arabia. Why does nobody mention Turkey, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, North Cyprus- just off the top of my head. Oh, it's because nothing has gone wrong in those countries. Moving on...

    Second, you seem to have forgotten the name of the charity you're talking about, and have no statistics to hand to back up your illogical argument. Pretty standard for this forum anyway. And I'm the one who doesn't read the news?

    Third, nobody is listening to my leftie "claptrap" apparently. You make out that half of Europe is sick of common sense, and then cite an article that proves immigrants to be attacked and abused in Germany. That backfired a bit...
    Easily in the top 10 of the stupidest posts on TSR this year. I'm not joking or being facetious.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okey)
    No religion.

    But you are ignoring that there can and are different interpretations of all religious texts, which as an alternative yet equally valid explanation why not every Muslim is an extremist/ why there is such variation of the degree of problems faced by Muslim countries.
    Yes, there can be different interpretations of religious texts. But surely you see that the "moderate" interpretations are only moderate insofar as they ignore the horrible bits of the underlying texts. And that in itself is a strong argument pointing to the flawed nature of the underlying source material.

    Surely if the Quran was divinely inspired, Allah would have foreseen that in future people would "misinterpret" his passages such as "Strike terror into the hearts of the unbelievers" and would have ensured his text was beyond misinterpretation with no violent verses and many exhortations to tolerance.

    Of course the text isn't like that; the many interpretations, the schisms, the dogmatic theological arguments, the religious wars, are precisely what you would expect to see if religion was a man-made phenomenon. Which leads us to the question; understanding that religion is fundamentally flawed in such a way, shouldn't we prefer that there be less of it, or that people adopt interpretations that conveniently ignore large chunks of it (such as the "moderates" do)?

    The problem with Islam is that it is currently (as Christianity was centuries ago) extremely violent, disputatious and dogmatic. This is why they are blowing up each others' mosques. How many Christian sects blow up each others churches? Yes, they did it in the past. But the West evolved, matured and went through the enlightenment. It behooves us all to encourage such a maturing process, not lie to ourselves and to Muslims out of some misplaced sense of political correctness to tell them it's all okay.

    In any case, you seem like an okay guy and intelligent. I do believe you may be slightly misguided, I would really like you to watch this atheism, debate between Christopher Hitchens and Frank Turek. It's about Christianity, but I feel you will really appreciate it and it will help you understand where I am coming from (you can almost fast forward through all the bits by Frank Turek, the Christian guy.. focus on Hitchens). He is talking about why religion poisons everything.

    (Fast forward to 28:40 where Hitchens starts his argument. It's a genuine pleasure to listen to)

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okey)
    What exactly is Islamic law?
    It is law derived from the Quran and the Sunnah.

    If you're talking about Sharia Law, then maybe you can show me where exactly it says that. Sharia Law is a concept that is constantly debated in the Muslim world, and there is no concrete book of it- so to make a claim as to what it entails is pointless as it is not agreed by Muslims what it entails. However, I do happen to have a copy of the most widely agreed "Sharia Law" (which doesn't say anything of that sort)- I can send it to you if you'd like to read it for the first time. So no, that is a single incident.
    Punishments and evidential requirements are laid down in the Quran and Sunnah. Sharia is merely the implementation of these rules. It is clear from both that any woman engaging in zina is to recieve certain punishments. In order to receive the hudood (most severe) punishments, the evidence needed is the testimony of four ment of a confession. If a woman goes to the police and reports that she has been raped, the strict interpretation is that without the appropriate witnesses, she has confessed to committing zina. There have been several reported incidences in different countries using sharia, including Europeans. It is, by no means, an isolated, Saudia incident.

    Any system that places the onus on the woman to prove her own innocence in such a situation is barbaric and any attempt to defend it shoould be kilewise treated with contempt.

    I don't know where you got it from that I'm denying the lack of women's rights in the Middle East- because I don't. There is no doubt that there is serious work to be done there. But the problem presents itself when you try to link this to Islam. This isn't an Islamic problem, it's a Saudi Arabian problem etc. There are many Muslim countries (in fact most) which do not exhibit this behaviour. Many of them have had more female head of states that the US.
    I suggest you spend more time looking at the issue of women's rights in countries that adopt a more theocratic approach to the implementation of sharia and fiqh. Perhaps look at recent changes in the law in Indonesia? Adultery, fornication and homosexuality are now to be punished with 100 lashes - specifically to be in accordance with the Quran and Sunnah.

    And while we are on the subject of Indonesia, it is a good place to stop and explode another apologist myth - that FGM has nothing to do with Islam (I assume you support this position as you are claiming that the punishment of women in accordance to the prescriptions of the Quran and sunnah has nothing to do with Islam either). Indonesia had no history of FGM until the arrival of Islam in the 13th century. Now it has a victim rate of over 80% being subject to some form of FGM and the foremost Islamic body in Indonesia has called FGM a religious duty. This could not have happened if it was merely an African cultural Issue.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okey)
    If you can't make sense of basic English, I'll help you along a bit. There is no denying the issues present in Saudi Arabia and Dubai. However, those issues are problems for Saudi Arabia and Dubai- not Islam.
    I think you need to clarify your position here. You appear to be saying that the problems facing people, that are caused by implementation of sharia based on a strict and literal interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah, has nothing to do with Islam, but is merely caused by the state itself.

    Are you aware of the source of all legal pronouncements in KSA? Article 1 of the Basic Law states - "God's Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet are its constitution".
    Any legal issue is referred primarily to these two sources.
    Therefore, any issue with criminality and punishment is fundamentally and inextricably tied to Islam.
    You may as well say "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." The people who run KSA may well be brutal, sociopathic tyrants under any system - but the system that they actually use is Islam. And it is no coincidence, when considering other countries of the traditional ME/NA Islamic bloc, that the ones who favour the more dogmatic, theocratic approach are the ones that have the worst human rights records.

    Simply put, once you abrogate your innate human empathy to the objective morality of a higher power, there is nothing that man will do to his fellow. History has shown us this time and again.

    Sharia Law (as I said to the other person) is a concept that it being debated in the Muslim world (not that you know what that is). It seems that you seem to assume there are problems in other countries because of it.
    Indeed. Politicians in more liberal, secular Muslim countries are often at odds with clerics over how fully, if at all, sharia should be incorporated into the legal system.

    Sharia Law is optional to be applied to very specific circumstances (and it's debated what it even is.) You really have no argument.
    Depend in which country you are. If you are in one of the 14 countries where sharia fully covers both personal and criminal procedings, it is not optional at all.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    I think you need to clarify your position here. You appear to be saying that the problems facing people, that are caused by implementation of sharia based on a strict and literal interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah, has nothing to do with Islam, but is merely caused by the state itself.

    Are you aware of the source of all legal pronouncements in KSA? Article 1 of the Basic Law states - "God's Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet are its constitution".
    Any legal issue is referred primarily to these two sources.
    Therefore, any issue with criminality and punishment is fundamentally and inextricably tied to Islam.
    You may as well say "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." The people who run KSA may well be brutal, sociopathic tyrants under any system - but the system that they actually use is Islam. And it is no coincidence, when considering other countries of the traditional ME/NA Islamic bloc, that the ones who favour the more dogmatic, theocratic approach are the ones that have the worst human rights records.

    Simply put, once you abrogate your innate human empathy to the objective morality of a higher power, there is nothing that man will do to his fellow. History has shown us this time and again.

    Indeed. Politicians in more liberal, secular Muslim countries are often at odds with clerics over how fully, if at all, sharia should be incorporated into the legal system.

    Depend in which country you are. If you are in one of the 14 countries where sharia fully covers both personal and criminal procedings, it is not optional at all.
    My position is that countries that employ strict Sharia are doing so in accordance with their interpretation of the Qur'an. If they choose to interpret it so literally and without context, then they are the ones to blame rather than the Quranic text itself.

    I don't think there is any content of the Qur'an that exceeds the levels of brutality shown in the Bible, yet there is no/ very little example of Christian countries implementing such inhumane laws. This means that it is not the Qur'an itself, but its interpretation of it. I don't believe that you can say that these laws can be linked to Islam as such anymore than you could argue that Christianity is to blame for the Chapel Hill shooting for instance. It is people's interpretation of these texts that gives them their justification for their actions. A sociopath will have a violent interpretation of any religion, whilst the millions of moderate Muslims around the world have their own rational interpretations involving contextualisation which cannot be tied to any deaths.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

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.