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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    or, could it not be a mix of those two laws?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JJMS)
    My apologies, I meant to say if not in public, not public.
    So if I rape and murder 30 people,all in private and I don't own up, that's fine and I won't be punished??. Either you're wrong on this or Shariah is a disgusting law system.
    This is a way of trying to sell Shariah to those of us that are more liberal and progressive.

    Essentially, many Muslims know that we will not tolerate persecution of Homosexuals, those who engage in pre-maritial sex and so forth. So whilst those are very obviously crimes in Islam they attempt to divert attention away from this by pointing out that there are various caveats to punishment in Shariah. For instance, to be prosecuted for Homosexuality in a perfect Shariah state, one would have to have been witnissed in the act by 4 reliable witnesses, or 4 reliable people must have over-heard you confessing or talking about the act. So the spin is that, 'Hey, as long as noone knows you're doing it, it's ok!'

    Which really rather fails to address the issue that it should not be a criminal offence anyway. And obviously there are the issues around the application of Shariah and that nothing more than testimony is required to prosecute.

    So yeah, it's spin to try and sell an opressive and disgustingly illiberal justice system to a those in a liberal, progressive society.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JJMS)
    My apologies, I meant to say if not in public, not public.
    So if I rape and murder 30 people,all in private and I don't own up, that's fine and I won't be punished??. Either you're wrong on this or Shariah is a disgusting law system.
    I think you misunderstood me, in my first post I said certain crimes not all, sorry about the changing of words. I am talking about things like fornication or taking drugs, things which the person committing the crime has consented to, if done privately then its not effecting society only that individual who is committing the act. The reason I said that was mainly for people trying to say you cant have sex or drink alcohol in a state being ruled by shariah law when you can if done privately. But even things like fornication isn't usually done publicly in todays society. If the person then admits to fornicating and wants the punishment (maybe for religious reasons or thinks what he has done is wrong) then it will be applied. Also when these acts are committed publicly, there must be 4 witnesses to see the act because otherwise the punishment is not given based on 1 or 2 witnesses.

    As for rape, if the rape victim reports it to the authorities then of course there will be punishment if proven, and its for sure no rape victim will stay silent and if they do then how could any state do anything about it if they don't even know about it?

    Same for murder, even if done in private dwelling, any reports go to the authorities they will act on it. And if found guilty punishment will be given.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    This is a way of trying to sell Shariah to those of us that are more liberal and progressive.

    Essentially, many Muslims know that we will not tolerate persecution of Homosexuals, those who engage in pre-maritial sex and so forth. So whilst those are very obviously crimes in Islam they attempt to divert attention away from this by pointing out that there are various caveats to punishment in Shariah. For instance, to be prosecuted for Homosexuality in a perfect Shariah state, one would have to have been witnissed in the act by 4 reliable witnesses, or 4 reliable people must have over-heard you confessing or talking about the act. So the spin is that, 'Hey, as long as noone knows you're doing it, it's ok!'

    Which really rather fails to address the issue that it should not be a criminal offence anyway. And obviously there are the issues around the application of Shariah and that nothing more than testimony is required to prosecute.

    So yeah, it's spin to try and sell an opressive and disgustingly illiberal justice system to a those in a liberal, progressive society.
    I don't want to get into the homosexuality debate but what on earth are you talking about? One would have to witness it in a public place and there must be 4 witnesses, this is what shariah law says, we dont make it up mate, get a book on shariah law.

    As for the issue of it shouldnt be illigal in the first place, it wasnt legal here ten years ago, were the people of britain oppressive and illiberal?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by grannylovers)
    or, could it not be a mix of those two laws?
    Then it wouldn't be shariah law then
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Unsurprisingly i would pick British or European Law over Sharia Law.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by posthumus)
    Who pays for it ?
    The State does. The State is also obligated to provide food,clothing and shelter for all those that cannot afford it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    How funny the poll is 80/20 and the white british population is 80% and foreigners 20%
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JohnPaul_)
    Death for apostasy. Rape victims punished. Only an idiot would support sharia law. It would also make the system collapse.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Death for Apostasy? Quran 2:256 "Let there be no compulsion in Religion"

    Rape victims punished? That's a new one.. The punishment for the Rapist is Captital Punishment under Sharia Law.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RealRecReal)
    Death for Apostasy? Quran 2:256: "Let there be no compulsion in Religion"

    Rape victims punished? That's a new one.. The punishment for the Rapist is Captital Punishment under Sharia Law.
    Qur'an 4:89 that is often quoted in Sharia courts as justification for the execution of an Apostate.

    Qur'an Surah 4. An-Nisaa, Ayah 89 or Qur'an 4:89 [45] states that "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing: But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they (Apostate) turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them". This command to kill or slay is in all mainstream translations.

    Under Islamic law, rape can only be proven if the rapist confesses or if there are four male witnesses. Women who allege rape, without the benefit of the act having been witnessed by four men who subsequently develop a conscience, are actually confessing to having sex. If they or the accused happens to be married, then it is considered to be adultery.

    Qur'an (2:282) - Establishes that a woman's testimony is worth only half that of a man's in court (there is no "he said/she said" gridlock in Islam). Qur'an (2:223) - "Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will..." There is no such thing as rape in marriage, as a man is permitted unrestricted sexual access to his wives.

    Rape of Muslim women is against Islamic law - although the rape of non-Muslim women is not, if they are 'captured in battle' or bought as slaves. Even the rape of a Muslim woman is almost impossible to prove under strict Islamic law (Sharia). If the man claims that the act was consensual sex, there is very little that the woman can do to refute this. Islam places the burden of avoiding sexual encounters of any sort on the woman.

    Islamic law rejects forensic evidence (such as DNA) in favor of testimony. An interesting situation thus sometimes develops in cases where a victim alleges rape and the man denies that sex even took place. In the absence of four male witnesses, rape cannot be proven. The woman's testimony then becomes a "confession" of adultery. She can be stoned, even though the male is unpunished, since he never "confessed" to a sexual act!

    Some clerics blame rape on the woman. Australian Sheik Feiz recently said a rape victim "has no one to blame but herself. She displayed her beauty to the entire world... to tease man and appeal to his carnal nature."

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    This is a way of trying to sell Shariah to those of us that are more liberal and progressive.

    Essentially, many Muslims know that we will not tolerate persecution of Homosexuals, those who engage in pre-maritial sex and so forth. So whilst those are very obviously crimes in Islam they attempt to divert attention away from this by pointing out that there are various caveats to punishment in Shariah. For instance, to be prosecuted for Homosexuality in a perfect Shariah state, one would have to have been witnissed in the act by 4 reliable witnesses, or 4 reliable people must have over-heard you confessing or talking about the act. So the spin is that, 'Hey, as long as noone knows you're doing it, it's ok!'

    Which really rather fails to address the issue that it should not be a criminal offence anyway. And obviously there are the issues around the application of Shariah and that nothing more than testimony is required to prosecute.

    So yeah, it's spin to try and sell an opressive and disgustingly illiberal justice system to a those in a liberal, progressive society.
    What you want to get up to behind closed doors is nobodies business, Sir. And in regards to witnesses, there needs to be 4 that witness actual penetration. The 4 witnesses to hearsay that you mention is not true.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RealRecReal)
    The State does. The State is also obligated to provide food,clothing and shelter for all those that cannot afford it.
    Where does the state get it's money from ?

    Also I'm pretty sure the government or system we have now ensures that people get those things :rolleyes:

    Without the need of associating religion anywhere. You genuinely think Sharia Law will improve today's society ?

    So what are the perks for Muslims ? that is if non-Muslims would be accepted as equal members of society.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EMassey)
    Sources: Religion of the PeaceWikipedia (I know its not entirely reliable...)
    Well you're certainly right about one thing here, your source is definitely not reliable!

    (Original post by EMassey)
    Qur'an 4:89 that is often quoted in Sharia courts as justification for the execution of an Apostate. Qur'an Surah 4. An-Nisaa, Ayah 89 or Qur'an 4:89 [45] states that "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing: But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they (Apostate) turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them". This command to kill or slay is in all mainstream translations.
    The verse that you have brought from 4:89 has been twisted and misquoted countless times.

    Here is the full passage:

    [4:88] Why should you divide yourselves into two groups regarding hypocrites (among you)? God is the one who condemned them because of their own behavior. Do you want to guide those who are sent astray by God ? Whomever God sends astray, you can never find a way to guide them.

    [4:89] They wish that you disbelieve as they have disbelieved, then you become equal. Do not consider them friends, unless they mobilize along with you in the cause of God. If they turn against you, you shall fight them, and you may kill them when you encounter them in WAR. You shall not accept them as friends, or allies.

    [4:90] Exempted are those who join people with whom you have signed a peace treaty, and those who come to you wishing not to fight you, nor fight their relatives. Had God willed, He could have permitted them to fight against you. Therefore, if they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then God gives you no excuse to fight them.

    [4:91] You will find others who wish to make peace with you, and also with their people. However, as soon as war erupts, they fight against you. Unless these people leave you alone, offer you peace, and stop fighting you, you may fight them when you encounter them. Against these, we give you a clear authorization.

    These verses were revealed by God to the Prophet Muhammed (Peace and Blessings be Upon Him) at a time when Muslims were being attacked by the Non-Muslims and the Hypocrites of Makkah on a regular basis and permission was given by God to the believers to fight those that were fighting them. So it is clear, the verse that you have brought has nothing to do with Apostasy.

    Instead the Qur'an, is clearly against any punishment for Apostasy and God says in 2:256 "Let there be no compulsion in Religion.

    (Original post by EMassey)
    Islamic law rejects forensic evidence (such as DNA) in favor of testimony. An interesting situation thus sometimes develops in cases where a victim alleges rape and the man denies that sex even took place. In the absence of four male witnesses, rape cannot be proven. The woman's testimony then becomes a "confession" of adultery. She can be stoned, even though the male is unpunished, since he never "confessed" to a sexual act!
    As for rape, what you have said about Islamic Law rejecting forensic science in a Court of Law is most definitely not true.
    Source: http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?...D=12121&CATE=1
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    If you guys think you can run this country better ?
    Why not start your own party....

    ... do you really need to relate everything to Islam though ? lol

    The current 'system' can always be changed - why not just say you want to change some things about the country.

    Where does Islam come into this? confused.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ace123)
    How funny the poll is 80/20 and the white british population is 80% and foreigners 20%
    I'm not "white"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ace123)
    How funny the poll is 80/20 and the white british population is 80% and foreigners 20%
    I'm not ''white'', and you can't generalise that ''foreigners'' would agree to Sharia law.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RealRecReal)
    The verse that you have brought from 4:89 has been twisted and misquoted countless times.

    Here is the full passage:
    I simply said that that particular verse HAS been used to advocate apostasy in Islamic courts.

    For example the man in this article and this article was initially sentenced to death FOR apostasy under Sharia law regardless of what the Qur'an may say to you personally. It's all about an individual's interpretation, the same way that fundamentalist Muslims believe that Jihad means terrorism against many innocent people all over the world.

    Also in Abul Ala Maududi's, the greatest and most influential 20th-century Islamic scholar, translation of the Qur'an the passage actually reads like this:
    4:88: How is it with you that there are two opinions among you concerning the hypocrites,whereas Allah has turned them back (to their former state) because of the evils they have earned? Do you desire to show guidance to him whom Allah has let go astray? You cannot find a path for him whom Allah has turned away from the right path.

    4:89: They really wish that you should also become disbelievers, as they themselves are so that both may become alike. So you should not take friends from among them unless they migrate in the way of Allah; and if they do not migrate, then seize them wherever you find them and slay them and do not take any of them as friends and helpers.
    So under this translation once apostates who have strayed from Islam must return to Allah when commanded or it is okay to kill them. It is once more down to interpretation. Verses 9:11-14 also look as if they encourage the punishment for apostasy. Madudi says the following regarding these verses:

    Spoiler:
    Show
    A. The Proof from the Qur'an for the Commandment to Execute the Apostate

    Here I wish briefly to offer proof that will quiet the doubt in the hearts of those who, for lack of sources of information, may think that perhaps the punishment of death did not exist in Islam but was added at a later time by the "mawlawis" (religious leaders) on their own.

    God Most High declares in the Qur'an:

    But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail our revelations for a people who have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief – Lo! they have no binding oaths in order that they may desist. (9:11,12)[1]

    The following is the occasion for the revelation of this verse: During the pilgrimage (hajj) in A.H. 9, God Most High ordered a proclamation of an immunity. By virtue of this proclamation all those who, up to that time, were fighting against God and His Apostle and were attempting to obstruct the way of God's religion through all kinds of excesses and false covenants, were granted from that time a maximum respite of four months. During this period, they were to ponder their own situation. If they wanted to accept Islam, they could accept it and they would be forgiven. If they wanted to leave the country, they could leave. Within this fixed period nothing would hinder them from leaving. Thereafter those remaining, who would neither accept Islam nor leave the country, would be dealt with by the sword. In this connection, it was said: "If they repent and uphold the practice of prayer and almsgiving, then they are your brothers in religion. If after this, however, they break their covenant, then war should be waged against the leaders of kufr (infidelity). Here "covenant breaking" in no way can be construed to mean "breaking of political covenants". Rather, the context clearly determines its meaning to be "confessing Islam and then renouncing it". Thereafter the meaning of "fight the heads of disbelief" (9:11,12) can only mean that war should be waged against the leaders instigating apostasy.[2]


    The article in question also debates the use of Qur'an quotes to argue that apostasy is not punishable in Islam. One it identifies is the one that you are using "Let there be no compulsion in religion". The whole verse gives a rather different or confusing impression. Without taking the context of its revelation, it is difficult to grasp its true meaning. An Islamic scholars view on the circumstances of this verse:

    Spoiler:
    Show
    (Ibn Kathir)
    It was reported that the Ansar were the reason behind revealing this Ayah, although its indication is general in meaning. Ibn Jarir recorded that Ibn ‘Abbas said that before Islam, "When (an Ansar) woman would not bear children who would live, she would vow that if she gives birth to a child who remains alive, she would raise him as a Jew. When Banu An-Nadir (the Jewish tribe) were evacuated from Al-Madinah, some of the children of the Ansar were being raised among them, and the Ansar said, ‘We will not abandon our children’. Allah revealed,

    ﴿لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِى الدِّينِ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ﴾

    (There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the right path has become distinct from the wrong path.)''

    Abu Dawud and An-Nasa'i also recorded this Hadith. As for the Hadith that Imam Ahmad recorded, in which Anas said that the Messenger of Allah said to a man,

    «أَسْلِم»

    قَالَ: إِنِّي أَجِدُنِي كَارِهًا قَالَ:

    «وَإِنْ كُنْتَ كَارِهًا»

    ("Embrace Islam.'' The man said, "I dislike it.'' The Prophet said, "Even if you dislike it.'')


    In the words of the article: "So, this verse was revealed on the occasion of Muhammad's exiling the Jewish tribe of Banu Nadir in 625 CE. And it dealt with what to do with the children of the ansars (Medinan Muslim converts), who were being raised by those Jews and were about to be taken far away to be raised as Jews. And when the ansar parents didn't want their children to be taken away for raising them as Jews, Muhammad revealed this verse clearly mandating that Jewish religion must not be forced upon those Muslim children. So, this verse has nothing to do with the issue of a Muslim's leaving Islam. It exclusively addresses the issue of imposing another religion upon Muslims."

    It's a truly fascinating article (available here).

    Additionally this fatwa issued from the university of Al-Azhar in Cairo (the most important institution of islamic law in the sunni world) states that death for apostasy is Allah's will.

    This article includes a vast number of quotes from revered Islamic scholars regarding their views on apostasy and it is shocking how many of them actually think that death for apostasy is the right thing to do, regardless of whether or not you personally believe that the Qur'an doesn't support execution for apostasy.

    (Original post by RealRecReal)
    These verses were revealed by God to the Prophet Muhammed(Peace and Blessings be Upon Him) at a time when Muslims were being attacked by the Non-Muslims and the Hypocrites of Makkah on a regular basis and permission was given by God to the believers to fight those that were fighting them. So it is clear, the verse that you have brought has nothing to do with Apostasy.

    Instead the Qur'an, is clearly against any punishment for Apostasy and God says in 2:256 "Let there be no compulsion in Religion.
    Fair enough that initial ver may be taken out of context but on its own it can be pretty damning and has certainly been used. May I also point out: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.” — Bukhari 9.84.57 ‘baddala deenahu, faqtuhulu’.

    Look overall I'm not saying that I believe that Sharia law adovcates the death for apostates, all I'm saying is there's plenty of damning evidence for the contrary.

    (Original post by RealRecReal)
    As for rape, what you have said about Islamic Law rejecting forensic science in a Court of Law is most definitely not true. Source: http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?...D=12121&CATE=1
    Whilst your link does not reject forensic science, it certainly doesn't advocate it as a basis for prosecution. Faraz Rabbani calls it "lesser evidence" despite it being much more trustworthy and reliable than an individual's word. Also I have found the original link (as opposed to Wikipedia) for the idea that Sharia courts on occasion disregard forensic evidence.

    Once again, it's pretty damning evidence.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by malikabdullah96)
    I don't want to get into the homosexuality debate but what on earth are you talking about? One would have to witness it in a public place and there must be 4 witnesses, this is what shariah law says, we dont make it up mate, get a book on shariah law.

    As for the issue of it shouldnt be illigal in the first place, it wasnt legal here ten years ago, were the people of britain oppressive and illiberal?
    I didn't say you mate it up, mate. What I'm saying is you Muslims try to twist it to make it seem like the act is not the issue.

    And actually it was legalised in the 60's, so well done there. And yes, in the past Britain has been illiberal and opressive, in some senses it still is illiberal. I'm happy to admit that.

    (Original post by RealRecReal)
    What you want to get up to behind closed doors is nobodies business, Sir. And in regards to witnesses, there needs to be 4 that witness actual penetration. The 4 witnesses to hearsay that you mention is not true.
    If a man is to 'admit' the act to someone, then they count as a witness. So if Bob said to Aaron, 'Oh yeah, me and Joe made love last night, up the bum and all that' and Sandra over hears and asks if that's true, then Sandra can count as 1 of the 4 witnesses. As is my understanding.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Our justice system leaves a lot to be desired, however, I would rather live in Antarctica than live under Sharia law. I like my rights.
    Offline

    16
    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?
    So did Arthur Scargill, and he can piss off too.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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