Sharia Law has no place in a free democracy
-
Originally posted by kheldorin:
Have I misunderstood the article ? I doubt so.
I think you misunderstood the article. The Syariah Law they are advocating only applies to Muslims so it does not affect the freedom of non-believers, just as how it is in Singapore. I don't see any sentences that imply that they want the law to affect every Australian. They are only proposing that Muslims in Australia be subjected to Syariah Law. So if they don't want to be subjected to Syariah Law, don't be a Muslim. Convert.
Another point is that, people should change their lives to suit religion not the other way round. So it doesn't matter if it's the 20th century or the 50th century. It should not be 'updated' as that would only mean human interference in God's will. And out of the 3 semitic religions, Judaism and Islam has remained constant.. That is the mark of a true religion.
It is always insidious that when a small step is made, the next step will be bolder and bigger.
Why should the Shariah Law be enshrined into the Constitution of any non-Muslim Countries that have welcomed the emigration of Muslims into their midst ?
Is the Shariah Law compatible with the religious, culture, social, and political norms of the New Countries that have accepted the Muslims ?
Living in the midst of the Australians, Englishmen, the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish, or the French, or Germans, or the Italians, or any other "Western" Countries, is it compatible for the Muslims to enforce the Shariah Laws onto themselves and forcing them to live differently from these other non-Mulsim communities ?
If one has to migrate to a "New World", why bother to do so if one will continue with the practises of the "Old World" ?
Singapore's experience is a different experience, but the Shariah Law has its limited role on the Singapore Muslim Community insofar as governing Muslim Family matters only.
The Shariah Law is NOT FULLY implemented, nor given full recognition, by the Singapore Government, which "firmly believed (?) " in the Constitution - that is supposed to be blind to all Singaporeans.
Fortunately for the Muslim Community, the Leadership in the Singapore Muslim Community have a broader view concerning the Shariah Law and its role in the modern world, and in a Multi-Racial "Democracy (?) " such as Singapore. -
So you are suggesting that the Moslem world has not moved on?Originally posted by Atobe:However, most religions have also morphed with the times when social, cultural, economic, and political changes have moved on from the days when men will still enslave other humans, when it is no longer 'an eye for an eye' kind of justice, when the "sword and stones" are tools for execution. -
Considering the state of women's welfare in many Middle Eastern and North African countries, I doubt it has.Originally posted by loudmonkey:So you are suggesting that the Moslem world has not moved on? -
Originally posted by loudmonkey:
Has the Islamic World progressed any further despite the gleaming glass towered building in their countries ?
So you are suggesting that the Moslem world has not moved on?
What has all the education from Western tertiary institutions of learning done to the many Muslims that have passed through the doors of all those famous Universities in USA, England, Europe, Russia, Australia ?
Has the religious Shariah Laws morphed and changed with the progress that has been made in the various social, cultural, economic and political practices that are followed by the Muslims and Non-Muslims ?
It is MAN who makes the Laws, which governs our conduct, why should the Shariah Laws not be progressively changed to be relevant for LIFE in the TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY ?
Looking at the referenced site below, has the Shariah Law changed to suit Life in this Century - (let alone for life during the time when this referenced piece was written) :
Islamic Laws
http://www.al-islam.org/laws/ -
It depends... Some crimes warrant caneOriginally posted by iveco:Considering the state of women's welfare in many Middle Eastern and North African countries, I doubt it has. -
the petroleum companies have already developed non-oil based fuel long ago..they're just making as much money as they can by buying and selling oil, you really think they're that stupid to forever depend on oil?Originally posted by maggot:Soon the oil rich muslim nations will say NO SALE OF OIL TO NON-MUSLIM NATIONS
No oil = buses,cars,bikes,trains,ships,planes and another vehicles that depends on oil for movement will be not moving
Luckily I bought a bicycle liao they're just draining the resources out of the stupid arabs. -
If anyone wishes to migrate and drag his cultural baggage along, then he or she should not be allowed to carry that bag in.Originally posted by Gedanken:While we're on that topic, Sheik Khalid Yasin, a radical cleric from America, recently visited Australia where he presented a series of lectures. In the course of instructing young Muslims, he advocated the right of a Muslim man to beat his wife. He also stated that it is impossible for Muslims to have non-Muslim friends and described universities as "a gateway for deviation".
Don't know about the rest of you guys, but I sure wouldn't want to live next door to a guy like this, especially if he's trying to get the local Muslims to impose such views on me. -
Crimes like adultery? In some cases, rape victims were ordered stoned to death for such a crime. WTF!Originally posted by sbst275:It depends... Some crimes warrant cane
-
You misunderstood by saying that the Syariah Law would affect the non-believers which is not the case here. The Syariah Law exists here in Singapore but there isn't any "insidious bigger, bolder" steps made by the Muslim community. Your assumption that the Muslim community has some greater political agenda is pretty paranoid. They are going to take over the world!! lol...Originally posted by Atobe:Have I misunderstood the article ? I doubt so.
It is always insidious that when a small step is made, the next step will be bolder and bigger.
Why should the Shariah Law be enshrined into the Constitution of any non-Muslim Countries that have welcomed the emigration of Muslims into their midst ?
Is the Shariah Law compatible with the religious, culture, social, and political norms of the New Countries that have accepted the Muslims ?
Living in the midst of the Australians, Englishmen, the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish, or the French, or Germans, or the Italians, or any other "Western" Countries, is it compatible for the Muslims to enforce the Shariah Laws onto themselves and forcing them to live differently from these other non-Mulsim communities ?
If one has to migrate to a "New World", why bother to do so if one will continue with the practises of the "Old World" ?
Singapore's experience is a different experience, but the Shariah Law has its limited role on the Singapore Muslim Community insofar as governing Muslim Family matters only.
The Shariah Law is NOT FULLY implemented, nor given full recognition, by the Singapore Government, which "firmly believed (?) " in the Constitution - that is supposed to be blind to all Singaporeans.
Fortunately for the Muslim Community, the Leadership in the Singapore Muslim Community have a broader view concerning the Shariah Law and its role in the modern world, and in a Multi-Racial "Democracy (?) " such as Singapore.
In my opinion, this "my way or the highway" stance taken by the Australian government is pretty stupid. Like Singapore, they can make a compromise to set up a Shariah Law that is compatible with their consitituition. In that way, they can bring the moderate Muslims to their side instead of totally alienating them. Afterall, what feeds the support for the radicals Muslims are the extremist government that is incapable of compromise. So yes, although there will still be some who will fight for a fully-implemented Syariah Law, they will now be in the minority and lacking support.
The Syariah Law is not forced onto anyone. Race is unchangeable but religion is not. They can always convert if they do not agree with the Syariah Law. The problem is that the image of Islam is intertwined with the Middle Eastern culture, a majority of which is pretty backwards. And as such, we should be clear on which are Middle Eastern culture and which are Islamic practices. You don't have to wear a Middle Eastern garb to be a Muslim when a simple T-shirt and jeans would suffice. The reason why they came to Australia is to escape the backwards Middle Eastern culture but they still want to practise their religion. There is no conflict.
I also like to point out that people tend to think of all the Muslim countries having the same practices when clearly this is not the case. Because of this decentralized nature of Islam which has no one central authority, Islam is being practised differently in different countries with different 'experts'. As such if the governments is smart enough, like the Singapore government, they can exploit this system and thus decide the type of Islam that they want their Muslim citizens to practise. Too bad, the only ones exploiting this nature is the extremists. -
ntt
-
You just have to see... Death sentence is death sentence, be it hanging or stoning, it is equally 'inhuman'Originally posted by iveco:Crimes like adultery? In some cases, rape victims were ordered stoned to death for such a crime. WTF! -
While Australia and the EU have done away with capital punishment altogether, there are still countries applying it to trivial things like adultery and homosexual intercourse. Clearly they are more than 1,400 years behind time.Originally posted by sbst275:You just have to see... Death sentence is death sentence, be it hanging or stoning, it is equally 'inhuman' -
Well, this is more to morale issueOriginally posted by iveco:While Australia and the EU have done away with capital punishment altogether, there are still countries applying it to trivial things like adultery and homosexual intercourse. Clearly they are more than 1,400 years behind time. -
Traditional interpretations of Islamic law prescribe severe punishments for zina' (extramarital sex) by both men and women; premarital sex may be punished by up to 100 lashes, while adultery is punishable by stoning. The act must however be attested by at least four male witnesses of good character, punishments are reserved to the legal authorities, and false accusations are themselves punished severely. The term "honor killing" refers specifically to extra-legal punishment by the family against the woman, and as such is forbidden by the sharia.
The execution of the Saudi Arabian princess Misha'al is a prime example of an honor killing in that the execution did not follow any Islamic court proceeding but was ordered directly by her grandfather.
Interpretations of these rules vary. Some Arabs regard it as their right under both tradition and sharia (by the process of al-urf), though this contradicts the views of the vast majority of Islamic scholars (fuqaha). Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran has condemned the practice as "un-Islamic", though the punishment under Iranian law remains lenient. In Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country, honor killings are unknown, as also in Muslim parts of West Africa. According to Sheikh Atiyyah Saqr, former head of the al-Azhar University Fatwa Committee (one of the oldest and most prestigious in the Muslim world):
"Like all other religions, Islam strictly prohibits murder and killing without legal justification. Allah, Most High, says, “Whoso slayeth a believer of set purpose, his reward is Hell for ever. Allah is wroth against him and He hath cursed him and prepared for him an awful doom.” (An-Nisa’: 93) The so-called “honor killing” is based on ignorance and disregard of morals and laws, which cannot be abolished except by disciplinary punishments."[5]
In Pakistan, when a bill proposing to strengthen the law against "Honor Killing" was defeated in Parliament, March 2, 2005, the government allied with the Islamist opposition to decide explicitly that the bill was "un-Islamic" (BBC) -
If it's just all talk and no concrete action, no prizes for guessing which brand of Islam will win out one day.Originally posted by fai:Traditional interpretations of Islamic law prescribe severe punishments for zina' (extramarital sex) by both men and women; premarital sex may be punished by up to 100 lashes, while adultery is punishable by stoning. The act must however be attested by at least four male witnesses of good character, punishments are reserved to the legal authorities, and false accusations are themselves punished severely. The term "honor killing" refers specifically to extra-legal punishment by the family against the woman, and as such is forbidden by the sharia.
The execution of the Saudi Arabian princess Misha'al is a prime example of an honor killing in that the execution did not follow any Islamic court proceeding but was ordered directly by her grandfather.
Interpretations of these rules vary. Some Arabs regard it as their right under both tradition and sharia (by the process of al-urf), though this contradicts the views of the vast majority of Islamic scholars (fuqaha). Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran has condemned the practice as "un-Islamic", though the punishment under Iranian law remains lenient. In Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country, honor killings are unknown, as also in Muslim parts of West Africa. According to Sheikh Atiyyah Saqr, former head of the al-Azhar University Fatwa Committee (one of the oldest and most prestigious in the Muslim world):
"Like all other religions, Islam strictly prohibits murder and killing without legal justification. Allah, Most High, says, “Whoso slayeth a believer of set purpose, his reward is Hell for ever. Allah is wroth against him and He hath cursed him and prepared for him an awful doom.” (An-Nisa’: 93) The so-called “honor killing” is based on ignorance and disregard of morals and laws, which cannot be abolished except by disciplinary punishments."[5]
In Pakistan, when a bill proposing to strengthen the law against "Honor Killing" was defeated in Parliament, March 2, 2005, the government allied with the Islamist opposition to decide explicitly that the bill was "un-Islamic" (BBC)
Reformation and re-taking of Islam from the extremists is the biggest challenge.And Muslims should never blindly follow Middle Eastern culture, it is God they worship, not the sands nor the tribes. -
While you guys are focusing on Muslims, there are rising bigotry and extremist views being bred elsewhere, for example, one of our Christian forum in sgforums.
-
Originally posted by kheldorin:
The point is not about Syariah Law being implemented in Singapore, in which the Singaporean Muslims are not migrants - unlike the subject of Muslims who have migrated to Australia, Europe, UK, and the USA.
You misunderstood by saying that the Syariah Law would affect the non-believers which is not the case here. The Syariah Law exists here in Singapore but there isn't any "insidious bigger, bolder" steps made by the Muslim community. Your assumption that the Muslim community has some greater political agenda is pretty paranoid. They are going to take over the world!! lol...
Before we get into a paranoia of the Muslims taking over the world, perhaps we should take note of the teachings and writings of some of the fervent Muslims from the Middle-east and Pakistan, as well as their fellow-brethens in South-east Asia who are planning a Pan-Islamic South-east Asia. (See Ref #1 and 2 below):
Singapore has Forty Years of Independence, and more then 150 Years since the founding of Singapore in 1819 - the Malay Community is part of the natural history of Singapore.
In my opinion, this "my way or the highway" stance taken by the Australian government is pretty stupid. Like Singapore, they can make a compromise to set up a Shariah Law that is compatible with their consitituition. In that way, they can bring the moderate Muslims to their side instead of totally alienating them. Afterall, what feeds the support for the radicals Muslims are the extremist government that is incapable of compromise. So yes, although there will still be some who will fight for a fully-implemented Syariah Law, they will now be in the minority and lacking support.
The population is largely comprising of the four main racial groups of Chinese, Malays, Indians, Eurasians, and some minority groups of Arabs, Armenians, Jews, and newer emigrants from China, Europe, Japan, and other parts of the globe.
Will Singapore change its Constitution to accomodate some other newer religions that will protect the Rights of a minor religious group, which has its Precepts that are in conflict with those of our own ?
If Singapore can accomodate Islamic Shariah Law, why does it not accomodate the Shariah Law in its TOTALITY ?
If Singapore can accomodate the minority religion such as Islam, why does it not tolerate the Jehovah Witness or the Falungong ? (See Reference #3):
Is there an 'opt out' clause for a Muslim to renounce his religion ?
The Syariah Law is not forced onto anyone. Race is unchangeable but religion is not. They can always convert if they do not agree with the Syariah Law. The problem is that the image of Islam is intertwined with the Middle Eastern culture, a majority of which is pretty backwards. And as such, we should be clear on which are Middle Eastern culture and which are Islamic practices. You don't have to wear a Middle Eastern garb to be a Muslim when a simple T-shirt and jeans would suffice. The reason why they came to Australia is to escape the backwards Middle Eastern culture but they still want to practise their religion. There is no conflict.
Similarly, can a Catholic also 'opt out' from being a Catholic ?
"The Syariah Law is not forced onto anyone" ? Try that again on the other non-Malay communities living in Kelantan, Malaysia - where men and women are not allowed to be in the same Q-line, nor swim on the same beach, nor enjoy their traditional entertainment with alcohol, nor public entertainment with songs and dances.
Is it not true that the image of Islam is intertwined with the Middle-eastern culture ?
Besides being clear that Islam is not simply the outward display of physical appearance - dress and goatee, or total head-to-toe garb for women - one should understand the Shariah Law in its TOTALITY that governs the LIFE and LIFE-STYLE of a Muslim Man and Woman.
If a Middle-eastern Muslim decide to leave the backwardness of his country, why does he/she continue to subject himself/herself to the backwardness of the Shariah Law that contradicts the Constitution of the adopted Country, which basically protects the basic rights of all its citizens in enjoying a HUMANE LIFE that is progressive in all cultural, social, economic and political spheres ?:
While most Muslim countries are independent of each other in the political and national sense, it is Islam that binds all the Muslim countries together - as it is only normal for any group of people to naturally bond and group themselves together.
I also like to point out that people tend to think of all the Muslim countries having the same practices when clearly this is not the case. Because of this decentralized nature of Islam which has no one central authority, Islam is being practised differently in different countries with different 'experts'. As such if the governments is smart enough, like the Singapore government, they can exploit this system and thus decide the type of Islam that they want their Muslim citizens to practise. Too bad, the only ones exploiting this nature is the extremists.
However, over the last ten years, Islam has transcended narrow nationalism, and is now even troubling the legitimate Governments of Islamic States, as there are now influential Islamic Personalities usurping Islam to move the ground, and start a Pan-Islamic revolution to overthrow these Governments.
We have seen strong Islamic personalities in the likes of Ayatollah Khomeini overthrowing the Shah of Iran - (See Reference #4)
The call by Osama Bin Laden to overthrow the Royal Rulers of Saudi Arabia,
Is Islam practised differently in different countries, and advised by differing experts of the religion ? Are you implying that Islam in Singapore is different from that practised in Malaysia or Indonesia, or Pakistan and the Middle-east countries ?
Surely, every good Muslim are all bound by the same required religious practise of making the Haj, making the trip to Mecca and Medina ?
Are they any different ?
The Singapore Government is smart to accomodate the Singaporean Muslims only insofar as it is able to limit the religious fervour from spilling into politico-religious extremism.
The future of Islam will need to be carefully understood and not feared.
(See Reference #5 n #6)
Reference #1
The evolution of transnational extremist-Muslim terrorist groups in South-east Asia
http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/terrorism/chapter4.html
Reference #2
Indonesian cops nab Muslim terror suspects - Pan-naitonal Muslim State
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030203-061444-1355r
Reference #3
Singapore - International Religious Freedom Report 2004
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35427.htm
Reference #4
Dawn of an Islamic Revolution
http://www.alternet.org/story/21887
Reference #5
The Future of Islam
http://www.alternet.org/story/21887
Reference #6
A View from the Eye of the Storm
http://www.ctjewishledger.com/articles/2005/08/18/opinions/articles_of_interest/article01.txt -
Oh, immigrants or not, Muslim minorities are not allowed to demand for the application of Shari`ah. However, they can still appeal that in family affairs like marriages, divorces or lineage properties, they want Shari`ah to be applied, which is exactly how it has been in Singapore. Likewise in a proper Muslim state while applying the Shari`ah in full, it gives the chance to non-Muslims to act in accordance with their own religious matters concerning family, personal rights and such and such.
I certainly do not think a secular country is so bad. One of its exposition is to protect religion from the interference of the State, not the opposite. From the history of the Prophet, he had asked troubled Muslims to immigrate to Abyssinia (a non-Muslim country) just because there was a ruling king who was implementing justice and nobody under his leadership were subjected to aggression, torture or bad treatment. Hence, Muslims in these countries are to respect their law and the people who hosted them and deal with them in the best of ways.
Those ungrateful clerics in the article should have their nuts pulled and cracked for not being appreciative before they are extradicted. Or let me do some other painful kinky actions to them.... sigh.
As for the severe punishments in the Shari`ah posted here, its only a one sided view on the part of the "boundaries" law. The doors of repentance are always opened and there are tons of preventive measures. -
stop this religious bashing!
-
Things can get worse at Eternal Hope. This is really mild compared to what I have seen over there.Originally posted by About A GaL:stop this religious bashing! -
This is not religious bashing, it is a sharing session on how to reform a religion for the betterment of its believers.Originally posted by About A GaL:stop this religious bashing! -
Reform a religion?Originally posted by LazerLordz:This is not religious bashing, it is a sharing session on how to reform a religion for the betterment of its believers.
sheesh
Knowing that you are a christian, you are using your own values to reform a different faith?
Its understandable if you focus on those extremists and their actions.
But to 'reform a reglion' for what u believe is for the betterment of others?
What are u acting as, a god?
No wonder for the bigotry and hypocriticism in christianity. -
Hey chill, Ah Lau!
What we're talking about here pretty much covers the debate between the radicals and the moderates, so it does reflect what the moderates are thinking of in terms of reform. It's not a matter of turning Islam into Christianity - the issue here is how Sharia fits into secular societies. -
Am I stating my points as a Christian?Since when have I approached this from the wicked ways of rabid evangelism?Originally posted by laurence82:Reform a religion?
sheesh
Knowing that you are a christian, you are using your own values to reform a different faith?
Its understandable if you focus on those extremists and their actions.
But to 'reform a reglion' for what u believe is for the betterment of others?
What are u acting as, a god?
No wonder for the bigotry and hypocriticism in christianity.
Tell that to Martin Luther and see if Christianity is better off without the Protestant movement.Don't just jump to conclusions without seeing the jungle for the trees.
I mentioned reformation is better for the believers.You merely misinterpreted my stand as wanting to lord over another religion.Now who's the bigot here?
-
What u or everyone else believe is better for the believers? Again, who do u think u are acting as, god? Arent you using your own value system to try to change a faith u think is good for believers, when the issue lies on few extremists who misintepreted the Quran for their own purposes?Originally posted by LazerLordz:Am I stating my points as a Christian?Since when have I approached this from the wicked ways of rabid evangelism?
Tell that to Martin Luther and see if Christianity is better off without the Protestant movement.Don't just jump to conclusions without seeing the jungle for the trees.
I mentioned reformation is better for the believers.You merely misinterpreted my stand as wanting to lord over another religion.Now who's the bigot here?
Does original Islam advocates violence and destruction?
Whether or not Christianity is better off without the Reformation is for the Christians to judge, do you see anyone else butting in to tell the Christians what to do? And to think abt it, where are the Muslims in this topic?
And let me quote you, you are talking abt reforming a religion. Nowhere have you mentioned changing the system or changing the negative mindsets of many Muslims here towards other people.
Christian Reformation include major changes to doctrines, theology and practices, not just the system. This is what you want the Muslism to do?