Explaining Sharia Law

[WestCoastRunner]

Out of the 1.6 Billion that practice it the vast majority do. But you'd like to keep saying that the work of mad men and wars for political power in unstable regions is somehow unique to them.

Right, let's keep this in perspective.

[jazzer]

deleted

Edited January 17, 2015 by jazzer

[sharkman]

Exactly. Somehow a crusade a thousand years ago is relevant to sharia law today.

Facts are stubborn things.

Edited January 17, 2015 by sharkman

[Argus]

Out of the 1.6 Billion that practice it the vast majority do. But you'd like to keep saying that the work of mad men and wars for political power in unstable regions is somehow unique to them.

[Smallc]

Of course it's not right, but it is a point of contention when someone's saying they're uniquely barbaric for this particular reason that's not at all unique to them.

Today, a lot of it is pretty unique to them.

[cybercoma]

Today, a lot of it is pretty unique to them.

Not even a little bit.

[Smallc]

Not even a little bit.

I'm sure you can provide recent examples of Christians beheading nonbelievers or taking part in suicide bombings, or Jews rioting because of people making fun of Moses.

[Argus]

I'm sure you can provide recent examples of Christians beheading nonbelievers or taking part in suicide bombings, or Jews rioting because of people making fun of Moses.

I could, probably. Ignorance and illiteracy combined with religion can lead to some strange things.

The issue with Islam is that there is no central authority, and if there is one, what passes for it is in Saudi Arabia, the home of flogging and forcing schoolgirls back into burning buildings lest someone see their naked faces.

So there's nobody calling up idiot mullahs and imams and telling them their sermons were reckless, stupid and inflammatory, and that they better stop or be fired. The Catholic church had an issue with some priests in Latin America taking on the view that violence was acceptable in pursuit of justice. They called it Liberation theology. The Church eventually fired a bunch of priests, recalled others, and excommunicated the main proponents. But there is no hierarchy among Muslims, just as there is no one approving the credentials of potential new imams and mullahs. Who gets to be an important imam or mullah? Often enough it's the guy who is most charismatic and fiery in his sermons and thus attracts bigger followings.

And it's no surprise that the more ignorant and illiterate you are the more willing you are to accept such preachings and be roused by them. Thus the other issue with Muslims is that Islam thrives most in the most poverty stricken and ignorant corners of the world, where people are barely literate, if at all. Mind you that fails to explain Saudi Arabia, but then when you're raised on a brutal doctrine it becomes part of your cultural background.

So Islam is not getting more socially advanced in most of the world. If anything, it's going backwards, and becoming more intolerent of criticism or change.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Argus

[jazzer]

Damned few.

Amish, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons.....

Edited January 20, 2015 by jazzer

[Big Guy]

I suggest that if one wants to discuss Sharia law then you should indicate which school you are referring to: Hanbali or Hanifi or Maliki or even Shafii. Those with opinions on that set of rules for social organization should really understand the differences lest they be accused of being a misinformed racist or bigot with no knowledge of what they are talking about.

[Guest]

Meh, just check with Google before you post. That'll do it.

[Argus]

Amish, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons.....

Those are sects. And even there I'm fairly sure the standards for shunning are higher.

[Argus]

I suggest that if one wants to discuss Sharia law then you should indicate which school you are referring to: Hanbali or Hanifi or Maliki or even Shafii. Those with opinions on that set of rules for social organization should really understand the differences lest they be accused of being a misinformed racist or bigot with no knowledge of what they are talking about.

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.

[Mighty AC]

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 think some are just relativists who wouldn't tolerate such brutality from their own culture but somehow feel it acceptable for others. Far too many believe that morals are relative and religions are worthy of respect.

[Big Guy]

Mighty AC - I believe that morals are relative and religions are worthy of respect. Morality refers to personal and cultural values, codes of conduct and social mores. I also respect religions other than the one I believe in. I am pleased and comfortable in those beliefs.

Sharia is a lifestyle which certain communities use as their template for social interaction and justice.

Those who have bothered to investigate what it entails will realize that as a fact very quickly. Those who have not, will use it as a club with which they promote their particular peculiar agenda of hate, racism and exclusion.

That is the way it has always been, the way it is and the way it will continue to be.

Ignorance has never kept the racists for spewing their crap. Why should it be any different now?

[Mighty AC]

Mighty AC - I believe that morals are relative and religions are worthy of respect. Morality refers to personal and cultural values, codes of conduct and social mores.

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.

I also respect religions other than the one I believe in. I am pleased and comfortable in those beliefs.

Some try to grant elevated status to religious beliefs as if they must never be challenged. I respect your right to believe what you wish; however, your beliefs themselves do not deserve respect simply because they are religious. Religious beliefs are simply ideas and all ideas should be open to criticism. The good should be elevated, the bad castigated.

Sharia is a lifestyle which certain communities use as their template for social interaction and justice. Those who have bothered to investigate what it entails will realize that as a fact very quickly. Those who have not, will use it as a club with which they promote their particular peculiar agenda of hate, racism and exclusion. Ignorance has never kept the racists for spewing their crap.

I assure you that I have bothered to investigate. Now, please explain to me how being critical of aspects of sharia makes me a racist?

[Big Guy]

I respect peoples rights to maintain their own culture and rules of social interaction. I may not agree with them or may abhor them but I respect their right to self determination. You have an obvious bent on Islam and Arab customs, one which I do not share and certainly cannot get you to be more objective. So be it. You base much of your opinions on the PEW research - a vehicle which is questioned by many. How does one poll a group that is mostly illiterate?

But everyone has the right to their own views. For every individual who points out that Sharia encourages wife beating, there is another who will point out that it does not. I guess people tend to read (infer) what they want to depending on their predisposition to the issue.

Basically, I respect all other members of our species and their right to spend their lives on this earth without outside antagonism.

I also believe that to continue to argue this point with you wastes both our times.

[Mighty AC]

I respect peoples rights to maintain their own culture and rules of social interaction.

Basically, I respect all other members of our species and their right to spend their lives on this earth without outside antagonism.

I also believe that to continue to argue this point with you wastes both our times.

Shy away from the conversation if you wish, but at least think about these questions.

What about the rights of the oppressed in countries that practice sharia? The women who are being beaten or the apostates being jailed or killed. Do they have rights? Do they have a say in their cultural practices or rules of social interaction? Is the antagonism they experience justified because it is inflicted by their countrymen?

Let's say you watch a Christian bully beat a homosexual victim, you do and say nothing. Are you respecting the bully's interpretation of his religion and his right to be free of outside antagonism, or are you really just complicit in the attack?

[eyeball]

Shy away from the conversation if you wish, but at least think about these questions.

What about the rights of the oppressed in countries that practice sharia? The women who are being beaten or the apostates being jailed or killed. Do they have rights? Do they have a say in their cultural practices or rules of social interaction? Is the antagonism they experience justified because it is inflicted by their countrymen?

No, they do not have rights under the thumbs they're under. Their suffering however will inspire eventual rebellion, revolution and overthrow of their oppressors from within. This is the human way. The path to enlightenment is painful.

Our painful lesson will be to watch and reflect on how our interference made a painful path that much more painful. The question is whether we're smart enough to learn anything about ourselves from this. I'd say no so far.

[Big Guy]

AC - Not shying away but just had enough. Thank you for your suggested thoughts on the issue. I have shared my feelings and have nothing more to say. I assume that you are also done as regards my posts.

[Michael Hardner]

however, your beliefs themselves do not deserve respect simply because they are religious.

I agree that they do not "deserve" respect. Respect is given individually and personally, and not based on objective criteria. You decide what to respect or not.

Religious rights, though, do need special protection because of their status as irrational beliefs that conflict with other religious beliefs, and the even general values held by society in some cases. The separation of church and state, and the pluralism enshrined in western constitutions is actually an evolution of the concept of 'tolerance', which is the foundation for so many human rights initiatives today.

Those who follow their religions correctly will be able to reconcile their religious freedoms with the freedoms of a free society.

[Argus]

I respect peoples rights to maintain their own culture and rules of social interaction. I may not agree with them or may abhor them but I respect their right to self determination.

So if you want to enslave people, have sex with children, or throw gay guys off a roof to cheers and applause, Big guy will respect that! But if you criticize people for doing that big guy will call you names!

You're so frightened of saying anything unflattering about any aspect of foreign cultures you're left with no option but to instead judge regular people who do!

[Argus]

No, they do not have rights under the thumbs they're under. Their suffering however will inspire eventual rebellion, revolution and overthrow of their oppressors from within. This is the human way. The path to enlightenment is painful.

It will? Not in 1400 years it hasn't. Maybe wait another 1400 years, is that what you're saying? See if anything happens?

[Argus]

Those who follow their religions correctly will be able to reconcile their religious freedoms with the freedoms of a free society.

Sorry? Where does that come from? If one's religious beliefs say that women should be beaten when they get out of line and one is following that religion 'correctly' how can that be reconciled with the freedoms of a free society?

[Michael Hardner]

Sorry? Where does that come from? If one's religious beliefs say that women should be beaten when they get out of line and one is following that religion 'correctly' how can that be reconciled with the freedoms of a free society?

It can easily be reconciled if people understand the basis of religion is to provide a moral framework for living, not to follow the ancient literal admonishments to violence for unbelievers, sinners and so on.