Sharia Law has no place in a free democracy
-
In hindsight, we will know which path worked.And there is no one set path.Any form of change to mindsets and supposed state-funded ideology and interpretation that contributes to furthering the cause of peace and the fundamental basics of Islam, which happens to be tolerance and embrace of diversity should be welcome.Originally posted by laurence82: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?
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?
Have you ever read the Koran?When you do, then you will understand why I think that it's not just a case of mindset, because there is a huge amount of Muslims are under the thrall of a misguided authority that wishes to exploit Islam for tribal and political purpose.
The more I look at it..the more I feel there is some miscommunication here.Apologies if I have ruffled any feathers..just trying to put my point across.That's all.
-
I have to agreed to whatever posted by Atobe. It makes sense. Other religoin will put the national laws first before the religion rules.
The ang moh are so stupid to take them (as kind hearted and their so called humanitarian) and in the end the kind heart turn into evil repayment.
Its fortunate like spore where muslim members here are understanding and muslim law are only involved on family matters.
Imagine..... a girl must have 4 guys witness to prove that she been raped. Else the rapist will get scot free? -
See this is what is meant by interpretation and the fact that religion has been misused and misread.Originally posted by LittleTiger:I have to agreed to whatever posted by Atobe. It makes sense. Other religoin will put the national laws first before the religion rules.
The ang moh are so stupid to take them (as kind hearted and their so called humanitarian) and in the end the kind heart turn into evil repayment.
Its fortunate like spore where muslim members here are understanding and muslim law are only involved on family matters.
Imagine..... a girl must have 4 guys witness to prove that she been raped. Else the rapist will get scot free? -
Precisely. The root of the problems lies within a few idiotic extremists.Originally posted by LazerLordz:In hindsight, we will know which path worked.And there is no one set path.Any form of change to mindsets and supposed state-funded ideology and interpretation that contributes to furthering the cause of peace and the fundamental basics of Islam, which happens to be tolerance and embrace of diversity should be welcome.
Have you ever read the Koran?When you do, then you will understand why I think that it's not just a case of mindset, because there is a huge amount of Muslims are under the thrall of a misguided authority that wishes to exploit Islam for tribal and political purpose.
The more I look at it..the more I feel there is some miscommunication here.Apologies if I have ruffled any feathers..just trying to put my point across.That's all. -
Oh god, thanks Lazerlord for speaking out. Unfortunately, that was the state of affairs under the law in some Muslim countries. It is not, however, what Islamic law really says. How frustratingly moronic are them to confuse rape with adultery. "The need for the 4 witnesses is not to prove rape but to prove adultery. Rape in Islamic law of evidence can be proven using DNA testing, medical records, witnesses and even circumstantial evidence. This is because it is understandable that the women is potentially a victim and will not impose unnecessary hardship to prove her case. Whereas someone who wants to be a morality police and look into the affairs of others would have to give a high burden of proof to prove adultery (four male witnesses), especially because that has serious repercussions on the accused."
As a side note, in Islamic law, a woman who kills her rapist in self defence has committed a lawful act and will not be charged with homicide. If she dies while fighting her rapist, she is considered a martyr. -
Thanks for the clarification.Originally posted by Gauze:Oh god, thanks Lazerlord for speaking out. Unfortunately, that was the state of affairs under the law in some Muslim countries. It is not, however, what Islamic law really says. How frustratingly moronic are them to confuse rape with adultery. "The need for the 4 witnesses is not to prove rape but to prove adultery. Rape in Islamic law of evidence can be proven using DNA testing, medical records, witnesses and even circumstantial evidence. This is because it is understandable that the women is potentially a victim and will not impose unnecessary hardship to prove her case. Whereas someone who wants to be a morality police and look into the affairs of others would have to give a high burden of proof to prove adultery (four male witnesses), especially because that has serious repercussions on the accused."
As a side note, in Islamic law, a woman who kills her rapist in self defence has committed a lawful act and will not be charged with homicide. If she dies while fighting her rapist, she is considered a martyr.
-
Too extremeOriginally posted by laurence82:Precisely. The root of the problems lies within a few idiotic extremists. -
some would say that you have to accept gays as equal in society to move on..Originally posted by loudmonkey:So you are suggesting that the Moslem world has not moved on? -
These liberal western nations also have huge problems with crime and societies that are morally corrupt. I have been robbed twice in London.....now I think thieves should have their right hands cut off in public...if someone rapes my daughter I want to cut his genitals off and see him slowly bleed to death...sharia law does not go far enough in that sense.Originally 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. -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
And someone insist that the Death Sentence should be abolished, as it is a cruel form of punishment.
These liberal western nations also have huge problems with crime and societies that are morally corrupt. I have been robbed twice in London.....now I think thieves should have their right hands cut off in public...if someone rapes my daughter I want to cut his genitals off and see him slowly bleed to death...sharia law does not go far enough in that sense.
Yet, back to the thread, is it right for a migrant to insist that his Religion and Religious Laws be enshrined in the Constitution of his adopted country, in the same manner that will allow him to practise his faith as in his original domicile ? -
If it does not assault international sensibilities and does not contravene the Constitution.Do you think the whole society should move from a western liberal society to a Syariah based one on the whims of a small community?Originally posted by Atobe:And someone insist that the Death Sentence should be abolished, as it is a cruel form of punishment.
Yet, back to the thread, is it right for a migrant to insist that his Religion and Religious Laws be enshrined in the Constitution of his adopted country, in the same manner that will allow him to practise his faith as in his original domicile ? -
Originally posted by LazerLordz:
Is it not ridiculous when such demands are made - especially from a small community of MIGRANTS, whose arrival was based on the charity of the HOST COUNTRY ?
If it does not assault international sensibilities and does not contravene the Constitution.Do you think the whole society should move from a western liberal society to a Syariah based one on the whims of a small community?
Is it not even more ridiculous that prior to their selecting this HOST COUNTRY, these MIGRANTS should be AWARE that their selected HOST COUNTRY has a dominant RELIGION that is totally dissimilar to that of MIGRANT'S religion ?
Is it also not ridiculous that knowing the HOST COUNTRY has different sets of cultural, social and political values that will be alien to the values of the MIGRANTS, they should still decide to arrive at the HOST COUNTRY ?
The problem is that after two or three generation of residence in the HOST COUNTRY, will the off-spring considered to be MIGRANTS still, or are they already considered NATURALISED residents - either with permanent residency status, or granted Citizenships ?
Are these second or third generation EMIGRANTS entitled to the FULL PRIVILEGES and PROTECTION of the Constitution ?
If these second or third generation EMIGRANTS demand the full Privileges and Protection of the Constitution, should it not be emcumbent on themselves to ensure that their cultural, social, religious and political value systems should be compatible with the Constitution of the ADOPTED COUNTRY ? -
Sure, provided the small community can persuade the majority to their cause. Alternatively, one nation with two systems a la Hong Kong can be tried. In short, have a referendum and let the people decide how the Constitution should look...Originally posted by LazerLordz:If it does not assault international sensibilities and does not contravene the Constitution.Do you think the whole society should move from a western liberal society to a Syariah based one on the whims of a small community? -
Just for the record.That was a rhetorical question and you guys should know my stand on this.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Sure, provided the small community can persuade the majority to their cause. Alternatively, one nation with two systems a la Hong Kong can be tried. In short, have a referendum and let the people decide how the Constitution should look...
It's an absolute farce.
-
In Singapore, male Muslim citizens can legally marry up to four wives according to the sharia. This is not a political issue at all. For matters relating to Muslim marriage, divorce and inheritance, sharia laws apply. The rest NO.
-
But does it allow a Muslim woman to file for divorce if her husband marries again without her consent?Originally posted by Airforceone:In Singapore, male Muslim citizens can legally marry up to four wives according to the sharia. This is not a political issue at all. For matters relating to Muslim marriage, divorce and inheritance, sharia laws apply. The rest NO. -
Oh my... It's all about interpretation isn't it? What seems to be good for some may not be good to others. Laws (constitutional, religious, etc) are set by man. Naturally, there's bound to be unfairness, errors, etc even though the initial intention was good. Man also has this tendency to resist change. If man are more open to update these laws to fit modern situations, then we'd see less of these conflicts that we see (or read) everyday in the news.
In addition, I agree that the image of Islam is unfortunately intertwined with Arabic culture. I'm a modern Sunni Muslim young woman. I don't believe that by wearing a Hijab or being less outspoken will make me a better Muslim. Islam, or any other religion for that matter, is a faith that's within your heart. It's not about what you wear, which buildings you pray in, what food you eat... On Judgement Day, it's just you and God.
In conclusion, Shariah law can exist within the Constitutional laws. I don't see why it can't considering that the Constitutional laws of some countries (namely USA) were based on (or influenced by) Christianity. If governments aren't open-minded about it, it just smacks of double standards doesn't it?
***Just my humble but honest opinions*** -
Originally posted by modgurl:
Laws are made by the Community, and guided by those in the Community who are 'more influential' through the POWERS from the 'Gun', or from the POWERS accumulated by NUMBERS.
Oh my... It's all about interpretation isn't it? What seems to be good for some may not be good to others. Laws (constitutional, religious, etc) are set by man. Naturally, there's bound to be unfairness, errors, etc even though the initial intention was good. Man also has this tendency to resist change. If man are more open to update these laws to fit modern situations, then we'd see less of these conflicts that we see (or read) everyday in the news.
It is a natural process that those who are STRONGER in Society will DOMINATE the WEAKER ones - unless a strong sense of EQUALITY and JUSTICE remain in the minds of the STRONGER personalities privileged to be in POWER.
Has this happen in some societies, where women is subjugated and treated worse than the treatment afforded to criminals ?:
Your claim to be a 'SUNNI' Muslim has unfortunately confirmed the "image of Islam is unfortunately intertwined with Arabic culture " - why would a Singaporean Muslim identify himself/herself with the Arabic tribe or sect of Islamic practitioners ?
In addition, I agree that the image of Islam is unfortunately intertwined with Arabic culture. I'm a modern Sunni Muslim young woman. I don't believe that by wearing a Hijab or being less outspoken will make me a better Muslim. Islam, or any other religion for that matter, is a faith that's within your heart. It's not about what you wear, which buildings you pray in, what food you eat... On Judgement Day, it's just you and God.
Does ISLAM allow for any deviations and differences in the Islamic tenets, principles, and concepts as determined by the different Arabic sects or tribes ?
Why will a South-east Asian Muslim get involved in the complexities of Middle-eastern tribal-religious practice of Islam ?Originally posted by modgurl:
Can the Shariah Law co-exist with any Constitutional Laws of a Modern Democracy, when the Shariah Law place so much restrictions that - for all intent and purpose - do not recognised the LEGAL RIGHTS of WOMEN ?
In conclusion, Shariah law can exist within the Constitutional laws. I don't see why it can't considering that the Constitutional laws of some countries (namely USA) were based on (or influenced by) Christianity. If governments aren't open-minded about it, it just smacks of double standards doesn't it?
***Just my humble but honest opinions***
Islamic Laws
http://www.al-islam.org/laws/ -
Religion itself can never be controlled or be part of the governing body. The war of the Crusades has been a good lesson in history when Religion is law. Simple.. full stop. Happens now when one side is governed by religion.. any opposing ideals will be intepreted as ideals against thier religion n therefore it becomes a Jihad for the muslims.
-
I thought she should ask the Almighty for such... advice.Originally posted by iveco:But does it allow a Muslim woman to file for divorce if her husband marries again without her consent?
Ie. since the great phophet is no longer around... for hundreds of years. -
The Muslim wife isnt compelled to accept sharing her husband with another women. She has the liberty to divorce, and like any other marriage laws, she can annul it if, simply, she isnt happy in her marriage. What more, she is entitled to demand being a full fledge tai-tai! Haha, really. Her husband is obligated to maintain her financially in every manner, if not, he is answerable to law or it can become a reason of divorce. And this is while the wife is fully exempted from spending her income on her family (shes financially independant), she retains her accumulated wealth and her husband is forbidden to take any claim of her assets or pester her to contribute for the household expenses. "Whats yours is mine and whats mine is mine.", as some would say.Originally posted by iveco:But does it allow a Muslim woman to file for divorce if her husband marries again without her consent?
Thats a part of the extent where the Muslim wife can assert her rights in marriage, but of course, it doesn't lead to that way and mutual consideration takes place instead.
Ugh, Ill reply with another website in return.Originally posted by Atobe:Can the Shariah Law co-exist with any Constitutional Laws of a Modern Democracy, when the Shariah Law place so much restrictions that - for all intent and purpose - do not recognised the LEGAL RIGHTS of WOMEN ?
Islamic Laws
http://www.al-islam.org/laws/
- Some Notions of Women's Rights - In answering the question at hand we will to embark upon several points, before any direct engagement with it. Therein, the difference between the existence of such rights in theory and practice within the Muslim world - a condition that is not particular to it, solely - and the cultural distortions of women under Islam must be concentrated upon.
Link here. -
Originally posted by Gauze:
While Islamic attempt to serve equality and justice to the Women in their community, events have always shown this to be to the contrary.
Quote from post by iveco
But does it allow a Muslim woman to file for divorce if her husband marries again without her consent?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Muslim wife isnt compelled to accept sharing her husband with another women. She has the liberty to divorce, and like any other marriage laws, she can annul it if, simply, she isnt happy in her marriage. [b]What more, she is entitled to demand being a full fledge tai-tai! Haha, really. Her husband is obligated to maintain her financially in every manner, if not, he is answerable to law or it can become a reason of divorce. And this is while the wife is fully exempted from spending her income on her family (shes financially independant), she retains her accumulated wealth and her husband is forbidden to take any claim of her assets or pester her to contribute for the household expenses. "Whats yours is mine and whats mine is mine.", as some would say.
Thats a part of the extent where the Muslim wife can assert her rights in marriage, but of course, it doesn't lead to that way and mutual consideration takes place instead. [/b]
The infamous incident of the hapless Pakistani women, who was subject to 'tribal rules' in an area of Pakistan that is supposed to be steep in Islamic teachings - shows clearly the impossibility of Islamic Laws changing the Muslim Society.
Even during the strict rule of the Talibans in Afghanistan, where the Shariah Laws were followed to the last dot, discriminations towards the Women were ruthless - despite the teachings and guidance of Islam and the Shariah Law.Originally posted by Gauze:
The intent of the Islamic intellectuals concerning the interpretations of the Shariah Laws is towards re-interpretation to suit the modern and progressive evolution witnessed and experienced by their Societies and / or Commuities.
Quote from post by Atobe:
Can the Shariah Law co-exist with any Constitutional Laws of a Modern Democracy, when the Shariah Law place so much restrictions that - for all intent and purpose - do not recognised the LEGAL RIGHTS of WOMEN ?
Islamic Laws
http://www.al-islam.org/laws/
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ugh, Ill reply with another website in return.
- Some Notions of Women's Rights - In answering the question at hand we will to embark upon several points, before any direct engagement with it. Therein, the difference between the existence of such rights in theory and practice within the Muslim world - a condition that is not particular to it, solely - and the cultural distortions of women under Islam must be concentrated upon.
Link here.
Unfortunately, such progressive Intellectual discourse are seldom accepted nor recognised by the Islamic Conservatives, who are puritan hardliners, with a determination of implementing the Shariah Laws on all countries with a large concentration of Muslims in the Population.
Shariah Laws demand good Muslims to follow its tenets and guidance to the last letter - can there be any 'IFs' and 'BUTs' ?
Until the Islamic Progressive Intellectuals and Dogmatic Conservatives come to some form mutual understanding on the necessity to make Shariah Laws relevant in the MODERN WORLD of the Twenty-First Century, it is unlikely that the Shariah Laws - as it is written and required interpretation - can be accepted into any society with Democratic Values (in the Western Form ) , that are alien to the Shariah Laws. -
Muslim countries themselves do not have good records in treating their minorities well. In Egypt, churches were burnt and Chirstians communities being attacked. Iran is also another famous country for assasinating christian leaders.Originally posted by modgurl:In conclusion, Shariah law can exist within the Constitutional laws. I don't see why it can't considering that the Constitutional laws of some countries (namely USA) were based on (or influenced by) Christianity. If governments aren't open-minded about it, it just smacks of double standards doesn't it?
It's a known fact in Indonesia that church buildings are torn down with the excuse that they are not safe and no new buildings are allowed to be built. That's why they use their house for religious activities. Now, there are reports that muslim extremists are forcing these chirstians to stop their activities in their own house.
Even in Brunei, if you claim to be Christians, you can forget about getting promotion as civil servent.
Comparing the way muslim govts treating minority religions in their countries, I think Muslims are generally very well treated in most western countries & US.
Muslims should ask themselves are they being kind and tolerant towards others before complaining about others violating their rights. -
It is indeed a sad reality in some of the Muslim world, Atobe and 84mmrr.
Anyway, the contemporary intellectuals arent reinterpreting the Shari'ah laws. It cannot be reinterpreted because it must grow afresh, as is when it was presented with an illuminative value and objective truth. A good example is in the webpage I linked to. That is different from a mere tainted immitativeness of the religious bigots who manifests such veracity according to their own needs while claiming religious validity. For them, the Shari'ah in the first place is a utilitarian receptacle. I really hope too, there will be change. -
So Australian Muslims should suffer because of the acts of other Muslims countries? Isn't that the same reasoning the Bali bombers use to attack innocent Western tourists? It's not as if the Muslim world is one entity, that they are all homogenous and they all agree on the same things.Originally posted by 84mmrr:Muslim countries themselves do not have good records in treating their minorities well. In Egypt, churches were burnt and Chirstians communities being attacked. Iran is also another famous country for assasinating christian leaders.
It's a known fact in Indonesia that church buildings are torn down with the excuse that they are not safe and no new buildings are allowed to be built. That's why they use their house for religious activities. Now, there are reports that muslim extremists are forcing these chirstians to stop their activities in their own house.
Even in Brunei, if you claim to be Christians, you can forget about getting promotion as civil servent.
Comparing the way muslim govts treating minority religions in their countries, I think Muslims are generally very well treated in most western countries & US.
Muslims should ask themselves are they being kind and tolerant towards others before complaining about others violating their rights.
Because of the terrorists attacks, Muslims in Western countries are suffering from social backlash and discrimination. A guy got shot in Britain just because he looked like Middle Eastern...
Not to mention the countless of detainess in Guantánamo Bay.