Explaining Sharia Law

[Argus]

So does Christianity, but Christians mostly ignore those parts of the Bible just as the vast majority of Muslims ignore that part of the Quran.

Except the vast majority of Muslims most certainly do NOT ignore that part of the Quran, as evidence by polls posted repeatedly.

[WIP]

I don't disagree... but to say Christians are a peaceful bunch ever since the Dark Ages is rather silly when they were bombing each other not so long ago.

Never mind the dark ages; if we look at the Eurocentric presentation we got in history class years ago about the ages of 'exploration' and 'enlightenment' they look like a barbarian invasion that plundered the resources and enslaved the people in most of the lands they colonized. The Christian supremacism that provided the ideological justifications for moving in and taking someone else's lands and enslaving their people, has been slightly adjusted in recent times as 'secular values.' But the Eurocentrism has hardly changed whether its adherents call themselves Christians or atheists!

[WIP]

I find morality to be a compelling topic. The idea that a moral framework should be accepted simply because a culture or religion imposed it has always bothered me. 'The Moral Landscape' by Sam Harris was an excellent read on this subject and now Michael Shermer has one as well. I really like Mike's work on skepticism and am looking forward to reading it. Here is Shermer interview conducted by Sam Harris: On Being Right about Right and Wrong

I have some big problems with Harris's "Moral Landscape." First one being that this egotist declares that he has bridged the Is/Ought Paradox proposed by David Hume a couple of centuries back, as an explanation of the problem of why a set of facts fails to provide complete justification for moral choices and evaluations. But, here comes Harris! And he's got it all figured out. Too bad all of those philosophers who specialized in ethics couldn't have found the solution before he came along to enlighten us!

I hate to heap scorn on Harris, since I do agree with a lot of points he takes such as modern knowledge from brain research makes determinism the reality and our sense of free will the self-generated illusion created by brain function. But, some of his moral evaluations on political events, such as advocating for the use of torture and even nuclear attack, leave me cold!

[WIP]

All I'm saying is that framework has been heavily shaped and updated by secular society.

I agree, and these secular values are being used to justify regime changes, military interventions, western superiority, faith in techno-solutions to structural problems - food shortages, environmental destruction...even death itself (transhumanism).

[WIP]

We probably both agree that beating my wife would be morally unacceptable. Does it become acceptable if I moved to Bangladesh? What if I married a woman from Bangladesh, is it now acceptable to beat her for stepping out line? Or let's say my father beat my mother and so did the fathers in neighbouring households; is it okay then?

I don't think that any location or upbringing causes the act of beating a spouse to become ethical. In my opinion there aren't Christian morals, Islamic morals, Canadian morals or black morals, just morals. The basis of which are rooted in human wellbeing.

And if Bangladeshis become atheists, there would be no more domestic violence I presume?

So far, the regime-change ticker since 9/11 hasn't provided any evidence that foreign interventions of various sorts, have done anything to improve quality of life. All evidence is they have done exactly the opposite. But, then again, that wasn't their intentions in the first place!

If any nation or foreign culture is going to improve whatever they're doing now, it's not going to happen by attacking them and trying to change and westernize them!

I don't believe people want to live lives of deprivation, misery, oppression and violence. If people in some part of the world are being oppressed by authorities who...are not like our Saudi friends - U.S. allies, then it's up to them to stage an uprising or a revolution to improve their lives. It shouldn't be overlooked that behind the scenes U.S. foreign policy has been to support the dictators and shut down and derail the Arab Spring uprisings from a few years back.

[WIP]

I would suggest that anyone defending Sharia law is basically not only a racist and a bigot operating out a contemptible paternalistic white supremacist viewpoint, but profoundly misogynistic and homophobic.

I would suggest that you go to an actual Islamic source rather than pontificate based on what the U.S. right wing propaganda sources have to say on the subject. For starters...in an otherwise somewhat misleading and unfocused Wikipedia article on the subject:

Sharia, in its strictest definition, is a divine law, as expressed in the Quran and Muhammad's example (often called the sunnah). As such, it is related to but different from fiqh, which is emphasized as the human interpretation of the law.^[45][46] Many scholars have pointed out that the sharia is not formally a code,^[47] nor a well-defined set of rules.^[48] The sharia is characterized as a discussion on the duties of Muslims^[47] based on both the opinion of the Muslim community and extensive literature.^[49] Hunt Janin and Andre Kahlmeyer thus conclude that the sharia is "long, diverse, and complicated."^[48]

I noticed this because I heard this point mentioned by some Islamic expert (forgot the name, and forgot the show) who made the point that most Muslims believe "Sharia" comes from the Quran, and is therefore divine in origin and unalterable, BUT "Sharia Law" is the application of sharia in law and everyday life for Muslims. And that means that - contrary to the anti-Muslim presentation that you have taken on here, the validity of Sharia Law is only as valid as the interpreters of Sharia Law!

So, regardless of the assertions of those who want some war kind of war against Islam, Sharia Law can be whatever the leading clerics and the majority of Muslims want it to be! Sharia Law became oppressive towards women because that was the culture of Arabia of the time. And to me it's interesting to note that just as Christianity began as a progressive reform movement that sought to improve the lot for women (some Bible verses were altered and some bogus ones added to obscure this fact); Muhammed was also a reformer, who was considered radical during the time he arose in Arabia. On many issues...like the rights of women, his followers wanted to go back to the way things were before he came along, just as the followers of Jesus, and even the main apostle - Paul's messages about the position of women were rewritten by later clerics.

All this is ultimately beside the point: if there is groundswell of thinking to improve the lives of women and give them more power in law and government, it will happen...regardless of what is/and what is not written in the Quran. Interpreters of "scriptures" can always find ways to make these verses say what they want them to say. It's just a shame that the enemies...of both religious traditions actually, can do the same thing, and cherrypick out shocking verses to disparage both traditions.

[eyeball]

Never mind the dark ages; if we look at the Eurocentric presentation we got in history class years ago about the ages of 'exploration' and 'enlightenment' they look like a barbarian invasion that plundered the resources and enslaved the people in most of the lands they colonized. The Christian supremacism that provided the ideological justifications for moving in and taking someone else's lands and enslaving their people, has been slightly adjusted in recent times as 'secular values.' But the Eurocentrism has hardly changed whether its adherents call themselves Christians or atheists!

Absolute nonsense. We've clearly kept up with the times and instead of priests and religion to provide justification we have economists and economics.

All we need now is a Profit.

[WIP]

Absolute nonsense. We've clearly kept up with the times and instead of priests and religion to provide justification we have economists and economics.

All we need now is a Profit.

Right, economics is the big pseudoscience today. Although I'd give evolutionary psychology the spot as runner up.

[Mighty AC]

I have some big problems with Harris's "Moral Landscape." First one being that this egotist declares that he has bridged the Is/Ought Paradox proposed by David Hume a couple of centuries back, as an explanation of the problem of why a set of facts fails to provide complete justification for moral choices and evaluations. But, here comes Harris! And he's got it all figured out. Too bad all of those philosophers who specialized in ethics couldn't have found the solution before he came along to enlighten us!

Have you read "The Moral Landscape"? We started this conversation previously and at that point you had not. His positions are often misstated by others, sometimes intentionally. I have both the book and audio book, if it is something you'd be interested in PM me and I'll send you the audio files.

[Mighty AC]

And if Bangladeshis become atheists, there would be no more domestic violence I presume?

An end? No, but certainly a reduction.

So far, the regime-change ticker since 9/11 hasn't provided any evidence that foreign interventions of various sorts, have done anything to improve quality of life. All evidence is they have done exactly the opposite. But, then again, that wasn't their intentions in the first place!

An improvement in human well-being was not the intention. I also don't support forced regime change. Though, I do agree with supporting people fighting to end their own oppression.

If any nation or foreign culture is going to improve whatever they're doing now, it's not going to happen by attacking them and trying to change and westernize them!

Agreed.

I don't believe people want to live lives of deprivation, misery, oppression and violence. If people in some part of the world are being oppressed by authorities who...are not like our Saudi friends - U.S. allies, then it's up to them to stage an uprising or a revolution to improve their lives. It shouldn't be overlooked that behind the scenes U.S. foreign policy has been to support the dictators and shut down and derail the Arab Spring uprisings from a few years back.

Agreed. Ending our critical dependence on oil will go a long way to help end our meddling.

[-1=e^ipi]

Never mind the dark ages; if we look at the Eurocentric presentation we got in history class years ago about the ages of 'exploration' and 'enlightenment' they look like a barbarian invasion that plundered the resources and enslaved the people in most of the lands they colonized. The Christian supremacism that provided the ideological justifications for moving in and taking someone else's lands and enslaving their people, has been slightly adjusted in recent times as 'secular values.' But the Eurocentrism has hardly changed whether its adherents call themselves Christians or atheists!

You must have been through the education system decades before me. Since I have been there it is all revisionist nonsense where Europeans are evil plunderers that are the cause of all of the world's problems. The social justice warriors now control the education system.

Edited January 30, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[eyeball]

Right, economics is the big pseudoscience today. Although I'd give evolutionary psychology the spot as runner up.

Not political science?

[GostHacked]

The crusades were a response to Muslim aggression. So again, what are you talking about?

Which brought humanity into the dark ages. The knowledge lost during that time took about 200 years to recovers.

[WIP]

Have you read "The Moral Landscape"? We started this conversation previously and at that point you had not. His positions are often misstated by others, sometimes intentionally. I have both the book and audio book, if it is something you'd be interested in PM me and I'll send you the audio files.

And I still don't intend to read his book! I was a member of Harris's discussion forum and a regular reader of his many blog articles after I picked up a copy of "The End of Faith," probably some time in 2002. At the time, I thought he was spot on, and he was certainly out front of later atheist celebrities like Dawkins and Hitchens. But over time, I started questioning his reasoning on the whole range of subjects he studies and writes about. Like I said before, I agree with what he writes about the determinism/free will issue, but almost nothing else these days.

Regarding his solving of the is/ought problem....or more accurately that science will discover enough facts to arrive at answers to moral questions, it was probably this TED lecture that I watched, and...well...I don't agree with his scientism: http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right

But, it's off the topic of religion and religious issues like Sharia and Sharia Law anyway.

[WIP]

You must have been through the education system decades before me. Since I have been there it is all revisionist nonsense where Europeans are evil plunderers that are the cause of all of the world's problems. The social justice warriors now control the education system.

You should have paid attention during your history classes then! Because, what these liberal revisionists were likely trying to do, was to end the white euro supremacism that permeated all European thinking in the days when European explorers, conquerors, colonists, slaveholders and other exploiters, were moving out and taking control of the rest of the world. Our European ancestors WERE evil plunderers, and what's worse in my estimation, is their lack of regard or respect for nature has become the operating principle of today's globalized capitalism....which pretends that everyone can be a winner...just like those lottery commercials on TV!

In the era of formal colonialism, the colonial powers didn't hide their intentions and motivations in the shadows. They declared upfront that these darker peoples they discovered in other lands were inferior and deserving of exploitation; and they had no rights to their natural resources, and their labour could also be taken for free (slavery) to ship the products of their work back to England, France, Holland, Belgium, Spain, Portugal...later Germany also...when Germany became a united nation, the new Kaiser (cousin of Queen Victoria) threw a tantrum because she had both of the highest peaks in Africa as part of her empire (Mount Kenya and Mount Kilimanjaro), so Queen Victoria played the adult in the room and gave the younger monarch her colony of Tanganyika....that's how callously the Euro nobility considered these lands and the people who live on them!

The entire topic of colonialism can branch off in hundreds of different directions that only tangentially connect with this topic. But, it needs to be noted that historians in other parts of the world, like the late Egyptian scholar - Edward Said, did provide that view of colonialism from the other side and how it affected life in the places that were colonized. So, I would bet that most of the revisionism you were exposed to, contained lessons that you should have paid attention to, that for many....especially right wing reactionaries...reject out of hand, because they are returning to the attitudes of manifest destiny...whether religious or newer secular formulations of euro superiority.

[WIP]

Not political science?

That too I guess. I didn't know it was actually considered a science...kind of scary in a way!

[bush_cheney2004]

....The entire topic of colonialism can branch off in hundreds of different directions that only tangentially connect with this topic. But, it needs to be noted that historians in other parts of the world, like the late Egyptian scholar - Edward Said, did provide that view of colonialism from the other side and how it affected life in the places that were colonized. So, I would bet that most of the revisionism you were exposed to, contained lessons that you should have paid attention to, that for many....especially right wing reactionaries...reject out of hand, because they are returning to the attitudes of manifest destiny...whether religious or newer secular formulations of euro superiority.

Actually, the very same concepts have existed for millennia with "indigenous" peoples around the world, including slavery and exploitation of resources. But who's counting revisionist history in that case...right ?

[-1=e^ipi]

You should have paid attention during your history classes then! Because, what these liberal revisionists were likely trying to do

So, you are implying that I did not pay attention in history class because I agree with you that the social justice warriors have taken over the education system and are trying to impose this revisionist version of history? What?

today's globalized capitalism....which pretends that everyone can be a winner...just like those lottery commercials on TV!

A lottery is a zero-sum game. Trade and production is not. Bad analogy.

and their labour could also be taken for free (slavery) to ship the products of their work back to England, France, Holland, Belgium, Spain, Portugal...later Germany also...

What about the Ottoman empire? Or the Umayyads? Or the various Chinese dynasties? Or Japanese imperialism. Or the Mongols? Those are conveniently swept under the rug. Probably because these are non-white colonial powers that do not fit with the social justice warrior revisionist narrative.

so Queen Victoria played the adult in the room and gave the younger monarch her colony of Tanganyika....that's how callously the Euro nobility considered these lands and the people who live on them!

So... 2 monarchs equal white people?

[Argus]

I would suggest that you go to an actual Islamic source rather than pontificate based on what the U.S. right wing propaganda sources have to say on the subject. For starters...in an otherwise somewhat misleading and unfocused Wikipedia article on the subject:

Any article on Islam is going to be misleading and unfocused. Islam itself is unfocused. Suggesting that many Muslims are wrong about certain aspects of Islam is irrelevant. If we're going to examine the positive or negative aspects of a religion we have to take it as it is which means taking it as its adherents believe. Sharia law, whether it is or is not divine, is considered so by the majority of Muslims, and what does reality matter when speaking of a religion?

[Argus]

Which brought humanity into the dark ages. The knowledge lost during that time took about 200 years to recovers.

The crusades didn't bring about the dark ages. If anything the fall of Rome did, and the Muslims certainly contributed to that.

[Argus]

You should have paid attention during your history classes then! Because, what these liberal revisionists were likely trying to do, was to end the white euro supremacism that permeated all European thinking in the days when European explorers, conquerors, colonists, slaveholders and other exploiters, were moving out and taking control of the rest of the world. Our European ancestors WERE evil plunderers,

Blather. Everyone was a barbarian back then, and that goes for all the locals on every continent. There was no Eden. Evil plunderers ruled everywhere. Borders were established, in all cases, by force of arms. The empires in America, Africa, India, the Middle East and Asia were all brutal, murderous and ruthless. Slavery was a well-established situation throughout the world. The Europeans invented none of it. They were simply better able to adapt and thrive, which begat their growing technological prowess, which also allowed them to conquer those less capable societies they could reach. Only a fool would feel guilty over that.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Argus

[WIP]

Any article on Islam is going to be misleading and unfocused. Islam itself is unfocused.

Is that any different than Christianity?

Suggesting that many Muslims are wrong about certain aspects of Islam is irrelevant. If we're going to examine the positive or negative aspects of a religion we have to take it as it is which means taking it as its adherents believe.

And, you have already looked up what 1.5 billion Muslims believe about their religion, and how it relates to the world, and how those Muslims in the West believe their religion relates to living among a majority of infidels or non-adherents?

Since there doesn't seem to be any Muslim members of this forum (I wonder why!) the critics, especially the harsh critics who try to stop the building of mosques, stop Muslim immigration, support foreign wars and occupations in Muslim-majority nations etc., should be the ones who are the real Islamic scholars here....and I mean REALLY understanding the religion, not just taking the propaganda off of Jihadwatch and other propaganda sites that have likely been created for the purpose of creating a Muslim version of the Red Menace, that functioned as the previous tool for surveillance and ever-increasing military and security budgets! If they couldn't create a Muslim terrorism threat to justify the military-industrial-surveillance complex, they would have looked a little further down the list to find the next foreign enemy that could be used to inspire hysteria among conservatives who are always prone to hysteria.

Sharia law, whether it is or is not divine, is considered so by the majority of Muslims, and what does reality matter when speaking of a religion?

So, how many versions of Sharia Law are there? If it was considered divine, there would be only one.

[WIP]

Blather. Everyone was a barbarian back then, and that goes for all the locals on every continent. There was no Eden. Evil plunderers ruled everywhere. Borders were established, in all cases, by force of arms. The empires in America, Africa, India, the Middle East and Asia were all brutal, murderous and ruthless. Slavery was a well-established situation throughout the world. The Europeans invented none of it. They were simply better able to adapt and thrive, which begat their growing technological prowess, which also allowed them to conquer those less capable societies they could reach. Only a fool would feel guilty over that.

NO, everyone was NOT a barbarian, or a plunderer! That has been a relatively recent...in terms of human history...development, with the first clear evidence of marauding, male-dominated warrior tribes moving out from Central Asia in all directions about 4000 years ago. Look up some of the first large permanent settlements, like Catalhoyuk in Asia Minor, and note that this village which would have had a population in the thousands had NO walls surrounding it, or any types of fortifications, nor were there clear examples of weapons being designed for warfare, rather than hunting! It was a completely different world before the time that fixed agriculture including animals, became the norm for an increasingly crowded world.

The rise of the age of agriculture was long considered the great achievement of human progress that benefited everyone. What we have learned in recent decades was that it was a step back for the vast majority of people who remained in low status under the oppression of ruling hierarchies. This may be a big part of the reason why Garden of Eden idyllic myths of the past arose in cultures around the world who made similar transitions from hunter/gatherer to permanently tilling the soil.

The German archaeologist - Klaus Schmidt, wrote a long article for National Geographic a few years back before he died, about his findings at Gobekli Tepe in southern Turkey. At the time, the dig was reaching down to layers more than 12,000 years old. These large stone monuments...now believed to have had wide religious significance, were built by late Neolithic hunter gatherers, who arrived at Gobekli once or twice a year, to conduct some forms of rituals, along with continuing work on the statues and possibly - temples. Schmidt's theory was that Gobekli was the source of our Garden of Eden story, as it has so many common features with being cast out of paradise beginning about 6000 years ago.

There is too much to write on in one post, but sometime I am going to have to get around to starting a thread on the subject of anthropology, because so much of what we were taught in school was BS, and new understandings of human origins and the development of civilization were suppressed for decades because they weren't in synch with orthodox history.

[Argus]

NO, everyone was NOT a barbarian, or a plunderer! That has been a relatively recent...in terms of human history...development, with the first clear evidence of marauding, male-dominated warrior tribes moving out from Central Asia in all directions about 4000 years ago.

For the purpose of discussion, we can consider I mean the period over the last thousand or so years. The Europeans were no more barbarous than the nation states or empires throughout the world, all of whom would have done the same conquering had they the opportunity and means to do so. The Muslims certainly did it to the Europeans when they had the chance. India and China were filled with wars. Slavery was commonplace everywhere, from Asia to to Africa to America well before the rise of European power.

[Bonam]

The crusades didn't bring about the dark ages. If anything the fall of Rome did, and the Muslims certainly contributed to that.

The Dark Ages, are, by definition, the period of history immediately following the fall of Rome. But Islam didn't come into existence until ~150 years after the fall of Rome.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Bonam