Big Guy Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 I have been trying to find information about Sharia. The only references I can locate reflect a pro or con attitude towards it. I am trying to get an understanding of just what it entails from an objective source. If anyone has located such a source please share it with me. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Moonlight Graham Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 Wikipedia? Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Guest Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 Just imagine being forced to live your life here in Canada according to a strict interpretation of the Bible, as interpreted by someone other than yourself. It's hard to imagine anyone except a nutcase having a pro attitude towards that. Same with Sharia. Quote
cybercoma Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 Just imagine being forced to live your life here in Canada according to a strict interpretation of the Bible, as interpreted by someone other than yourself. It's hard to imagine anyone except a nutcase having a pro attitude towards that. Same with Sharia. Except there are Christian and Jewish tribunals for family disputes. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 Except there are Christian and Jewish tribunals for family disputes. Wait - didn't McGuinty get rid of them ? The article doesn't seem to exist anymore but a link to it is on this blog: http://transfigurations.blogspot.ca/2005/09/ontario-rejects-sharia-law-jews.html Jews, Christians to lose their religious tribunals as Premier vows 'one law for all' Natalie Alcoba National Post, with files from CanWest News Service September 12, 2005 TORONTO - All forms of religious arbitration -- including Islam's sharia law, which was the subject of worldwide protest last week -- will be outlawed in Ontario, the Premier said yesterday. ''I've come to the conclusion that the debate has gone on long enough,'' Dalton McGuinty told The Canadian Press yesterday. ''There will be no sharia law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians.'' Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
cybercoma Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 Wait - didn't McGuinty get rid of them ? The article doesn't seem to exist anymore but a link to it is on this blog: http://transfigurations.blogspot.ca/2005/09/ontario-rejects-sharia-law-jews.html Good question. I haven't lived in Ontario since 2006, so I'm not sure. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 Good question. I haven't lived in Ontario since 2006, so I'm not sure. You poor b*stard. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
-1=e^ipi Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) Are you starting to see the light Big Guy? Well it's good that you are finally asking the correct questions and want to look at the evidence. Did the recent attacks in Paris and elsewhere incentivize you to start asking questions that may challenge your beliefs? The Wikipedia article is very good, but I'll give you a brief explanation. Sharia law (or more accurately just sharia, the word law after sharia is a bit redundant since sharia contains the word law in arabic), is according to many muslims 'God's law'. And to many muslims, God's law are the laws that humans should live by. These laws were revealed to the prophet Mohammed by the angel Gabriel and contain the direct commands from Allah/God. The majority of conservative muslims have the view that everyone should live under Sharia, not just muslims. In their view, "Why should we follow fallable laws made by humans when we can follow infallable laws made by God?". To better understand the relevance of sharia, you need to understand the historical context of islam. Unlike the origins of other religions, Mohammed took power over all of Arabia and started a war with the Byzantine Empire & invaded Syria towards the end of his life. For the begginning of Islam (atleast from 632 to 750, after 750 it started to split apart), Islam was a single united state, the Caliphate. Because of this, Islam was essentially a state with it's own laws that both muslims and non-muslims had to follow. Furthermore, according to Islam, Islam is destined to take over the word and unite the world under a single government that follows sharia. Because fo Islam's historical context of needing to govern a state, it is far more of a 'complete' religion than christianity, judaism, sikhism, etc. Because sharia arguably tells people exactly how society should be structured: how divorse should be done, how much tax people should pay (both muslim and non-muslim), what to do during war time, how to treat non-muslims, what to do with gay people, the correct punishment for theft, etc. Furthermore, Islam contains a system of abrogation that determines exactly what should be done if one finds seemingly contradictory verses in the Quran or Hadith, so Islam does not contain the same level of flexibility of interpretation as other religions. So it is very wrong to treat islam as just another religion, because it is a very unique religion. There are no verses such as "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." in the Quran. Islam is supposed to give the complete picture of how people need to live their lives Edited January 13, 2015 by -1=e^ipi Quote
Big Guy Posted January 13, 2015 Author Report Posted January 13, 2015 Thank you -1 for sharing your perceptions. While I do not disagree or question your views I do try to stay with resources that are attributed or individuals who are identifiable. I will be meeting with a well respected Muslim cleric soon and am looking forward to his views also. The last bright light that I remember seeing was waking up from surgery with a very large headache and a number of unpleasant pains. I do not seek the light. As to challenges to my views, I always encourage and solicit a civil exchange of views with someone who thinks differently and whose opinion is respected. How can one hold a view or position without holding it out for challenge? The more challenges, the clearer the position. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
eyeball Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 Maybe things would be easier if the Koran had the equivalent of a New Testament to help temper Islam. Imagine where Christianity might be if it was still stuck in the old one. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
-1=e^ipi Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) Maybe things would be easier if the Koran had the equivalent of a New Testament to help temper Islam. Imagine where Christianity might be if it was still stuck in the old one. If a muslim tries to make a 'new Quran' they will most likely be killed for apostasy. The Quran is supposed to contain the last and final teachings from Allah. Edited January 14, 2015 by -1=e^ipi Quote
Guest Posted January 13, 2015 Report Posted January 13, 2015 Good question. I haven't lived in Ontario since 2006, so I'm not sure. Wouldn't the operative word be forced? Quote
eyeball Posted January 14, 2015 Report Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) If a muslim tries to make a 'new Quran' they will most likely be killed for apostasy. The Quran is supposed to contain the last and final teachings from Allah. I'm willing to bet Christians said much the same thing about the Old Testament. Things change, they always do but just not always on demand or in time, which I can certainly relate to. Edited January 14, 2015 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
The_Squid Posted January 14, 2015 Report Posted January 14, 2015 Except there are Christian and Jewish tribunals for family disputes. If anyone is forced into such a tribunal, then it is equally as wrong as Sharia Law. Any Muslim group can have their own Sharia Law within their own church for their own members to adhere to... It shouldn't be codified into Canadian law and they can't break Canadian law with their judgments. It is also voluntary, supposedly... except that we know how religions, particularly the Muslim religion, treats women. If it is a progressive church/mosque then I'm sure these tribunals might be fair and useful for their members. If it is a fundamentalist sect, then it is likely that these types of "tribunals" would be anathema to progressive values. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 14, 2015 Report Posted January 14, 2015 If anyone is forced into such a tribunal, then it is equally as wrong as Sharia Law. I'm not sure you understand what was proposed. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
The_Squid Posted January 14, 2015 Report Posted January 14, 2015 I'm not sure you understand what was proposed. I understand the proposed law wasn't coercive.. I am not speaking of being forced by law... I am speaking of being forced/coerced/shamed into using such a tribunal by their religious community. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 14, 2015 Report Posted January 14, 2015 I understand the proposed law wasn't coercive.. I am not speaking of being forced by law... I am speaking of being forced/coerced/shamed into using such a tribunal by their religious community. Ok, well I for one don't believe that we should restrict the individual right to choose based on their religion. This argument is sometimes used against Mormon polygamy as well. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
The_Squid Posted January 14, 2015 Report Posted January 14, 2015 Ok, well I for one don't believe that we should restrict the individual right to choose based on their religion. This argument is sometimes used against Mormon polygamy as well. Should there be Mormon tribunals, Buddhist tribunals and Scientology tribunals codified in Canadian law? They should simply use Canadian law as it is already written without any religious biases. Or, if they want to take the recommendations of their cleric on a matter (Sharia law) they can already do so. No one is stopping anyone from doing so. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 14, 2015 Report Posted January 14, 2015 Should there be Mormon tribunals, Buddhist tribunals and Scientology tribunals codified in Canadian law? As I suspected, you don't really understand. The idea was to give people the option to use clerics of their choice, so I guess the answer is 'yes'. They should simply use Canadian law as it is already written without any religious biases. If people select a cleric to arbitrate their dispute, they would presumably be ok with the 'biases' there. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Argus Posted January 14, 2015 Report Posted January 14, 2015 I understand the proposed law wasn't coercive.. I am not speaking of being forced by law... I am speaking of being forced/coerced/shamed into using such a tribunal by their religious community. Any Muslim woman who refused to submit her issue before a Sharia tribunal would risk being ostracized by her own extended family, never mind the community at large, for she would be rejecting Islam in their eyes. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
The_Squid Posted January 14, 2015 Report Posted January 14, 2015 Any Muslim woman who refused to submit her issue before a Sharia tribunal would risk being ostracized by her own extended family, never mind the community at large, for she would be rejecting Islam in their eyes. Exactly.... that's the whole problem with Sharia Law. It isn't meant to be fair... it's meant to retain the status quo power structure within their religious community. Quote
cybercoma Posted January 15, 2015 Report Posted January 15, 2015 Any Muslim woman who refused to submit her issue before a Sharia tribunal would risk being ostracized by her own extended family, never mind the community at large, for she would be rejecting Islam in their eyes.Right. Because no Christians have ever disowned family members for turning away from their faith. Quote
sharkman Posted January 15, 2015 Report Posted January 15, 2015 Any Muslim woman who refused to submit her issue before a Sharia tribunal would risk being ostracized by her own extended family, never mind the community at large, for she would be rejecting Islam in their eyes. Better not bring up women, they are property only. Cover up those lustful faces and ankles, honey, until you can be pregnant and in the kitchen. Quote
Guest Posted January 15, 2015 Report Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) Any woman who submits to the judgement of a tribunal from any of the Abrahamic religions should go in with a large "L" tattooed on her forehead. Edited January 15, 2015 by bcsapper Quote
jacee Posted January 15, 2015 Report Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) Better not bring up women, they are property only. Cover up those lustful faces and ankles, honey, until you can be pregnant and in the kitchen. The problem isn't Islam: It's extremist religion. /ultra-orthodox-jewish-newspaper-edits-female-world-leaders-out-of-charlie-hebdo-march/ ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN WOMEN VS. MUSLIM WOMEN . Edited January 15, 2015 by jacee Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.