Stoning to death and Sharia law

Peanut

I agree with PDN here - there are plenty of Muslims and Christians (and any other religion you care to mention) that believe in keeping a secular State.

MooseJam

Hobbes wrote:

TBH I wonder why you even comment in this forum. You have asked this before and it has been answered before.

I did ? , sorry for the repeat so I don't remember having asked it. As to why I comment in the forum I'm interested in the views of others

irish_bob

InFront wrote:

As for Moosejam's question; yes I'd be in favour of more Shariah legislation here. As Hobbes pointed out, Shariah already exists in Europe both as a method available privately between Muslims and also the fact that many European laws are already compatible with Sharia anyway.
Just to reiterate, this isn't the same thing as saying that we should do things the Iranian or the Saudi ways, as has been said they're not yet operating true Shariah unfortunately.


I don't know if that's sarcasm or actually intended seriously. Presumably that's a reference to immigration, which as you probably know dosnt belong here.


I'm not making any excuses for terrorists, nor do I believe in seperatism, but if you're going to make statements like that then it should at least be pointed out that there are a lot of Muslims in South Asia and the Middle East saying the same thing, except they are saying it about "blow-thy-up" Europeans and Americans.

Anyway, it might be worth considering the topic of the thread and sticking to it.

so your in favour of sharia law being implemented in ireland
and people are aghast with the recomendations i made as regards muslim immigration into ireland

wes

irish_bob wrote:

so your in favour of sharia law being implemented in ireland
and people are aghast with the recomendations i made as regards muslim immigration into ireland

One person saying it is hardly representative of anything. Honestly, what you saying is rubbish, just a huge generalization. This is why people are aghast, or maybe its the fact you don't know how use capitals or full stops.

Plenty of Muslims (i include myself in this) are happy to live in secular states.

PDN

wes wrote:

One person saying it is hardly representative of anything. Honestly, what you saying is rubbish, just a huge generalization. This is why people are aghast, or maybe its the fact you don't know how use capitals or full stops.

Plenty of Muslims (i include myself in this) are happy to live in secular states.

i love irony

wes

PDN wrote:

i love irony

Just re-read my post, you make a good point to be fair.

However, a secular state like Turkey where Muslims live is a good example of what I am talking about. I should have given that example with my post. My bad.

HelterSkelter

wes wrote:

Just re-read my post, you make a good point to be fair.

However, a secular state like Turkey where Muslims live is a good example of what I am talking about. I should have given that example with my post. My bad.

Hmmm, do you really think Turkey is a good example? Muslims in the UK, or even the USA have better rights than Muslims in Turkey. Women are not allowed to wear their hijab while in college. I think it is a bit over the top.

wes

HelterSkelter wrote:

Hmmm, do you really think Turkey is a good example? Muslims in the UK, or even the USA have better rights than Muslims in Turkey. Women are not allowed to wear their hijab while in college. I think it is a bit over the top.

I was giving an example of a secular state, which Turkey is. I know there are problems in Turkey and the Kemalists secularist are certainly extreme. My main point is Turkey is a secular state with a majority Muslim population. It has problem true, but compared to Saudi Arabia, Iran or even Pakistan, its miles ahead of these states. They have a long way to go still, but I see quite a bit of potential.

Schuhart

wes wrote:

My main point is Turkey is a secular state with a majority Muslim population.

Apologies on butting in when I should shut up. Is it fair to say that, to an extent, Turkey is a country that had secularism forced upon it?

Saudi Arabia and Iran I'll accept are soft targets for a secularist looking for religiously inspired damage. That said, they do exist and do illustrate why some of us might cough more than a little when someone says 'lets get our law direct from God. Look, he gave us a book and some really sincere and hardworking people to explain it'.

But is there a vast collection of secular states with Muslim majorities possessing the normal array of civil rights? If we left aside Turkey, where else would we mention?

(Note: by normal array of human rights I would include freedom of religion in the sense of being able to do things like renounce the religion of your parents without official obstacle, and publicly invite converts from any other faith)

wes

Schuhart wrote:

Apologies on butting in when I should shut up. Is it fair to say that, to an extent, Turkey is a country that had secularism forced upon it?

Saudi Arabia and Iran I'll accept are soft targets for a secularist looking for religiously inspired damage. That said, they do exist and do illustrate why some of us might cough more than a little when someone says 'lets get our law direct from God. Look, he gave us a book and some really sincere and hardworking people to explain it'.

But is there a vast collection of secular states with Muslim majorities possessing the normal array of civil rights? If we left aside Turkey, where else would we mention?

(Note: by normal array of human rights I would include freedom of religion in the sense of being able to do things like renounce the religion of your parents without official obstacle, and publicly invite converts from any other faith)

As for Turkey having secularism force upon it, well they seem to love Attaturk over there. A read story after story on BBC News how most Turks don't want Shariah law etc. So I wouldn't say it was forced upon them.

I was arguing secularism more than anything else. I am not saying secular Muslim countries are perfect, far from it, but they could be a whole lot worse. Also in the case of the few secular democratic countries that have Muslim majorities, this means there is the capacity to change and improve. Which I think is the most important aspect. Secular Muslim democracy do have problem, such as Indonesia and Malaysia, in that full freedom of religion doesn't exist. This is a shame, however these countries being democracies, mean there is a capacity to change for the better down the line.

HelterSkelter

wes wrote:

As for Turkey having secularism force upon it, well they seem to love Attaturk over there. A read story after story on BBC News how most Turks don't want Shariah law etc.

It depends on what part of Turkey you are in and who you talk to. A lot of Turks don't like Ataturk. I was in Istanbul and got talking to some Turks and they didn't have a lot of nice things to say about him. Insulting Ataturk is a crime in Turkey so perhaps that is why you don't hear so many people speaking against him. I think there is some truth to Schuhart's point that Turkey has had secularism forced upon it.

wes

HelterSkelter wrote:

It depends on what part of Turkey you are in and who you talk to. A lot of Turks don't like Ataturk. I was in Istanbul and got talking to some Turks and they didn't have a lot of nice things to say about him. Insulting Ataturk is a crime in Turkey so perhaps that is why you don't hear so many people speaking against him. I think there is some truth to Schuhart's point that Turkey has had secularism forced upon it.

From what I have read, the Turks don't particularly want Shariah law. Even with them voting the AKP in, polls still reflect that majority don't want it. Maybe, at the founding of the state this was the case that this was forced upon them, but it seems to be a different story now.

Peanut

HelterSkelter wrote:

.... I think there is some truth to Schuhart's point that Turkey has had secularism forced upon it.

You could say that, but there is the widespread belief that secularisation allowed Turkey to develop into a modern, prosperous state, and a lot of people there are fiercely protective of that.

maitri

the_new_mr wrote:

That's interesting there maitri. Thanks for that. The translation of the word crucification of verse 33 of Surat Al-Ma'ida is correct. But, as you say, perhaps the Quran's teachings on repelling evil with good and how this is better all round is better. At the same time, the command seems very clear.

When it comes toe the verse 33 of Surat Al-Ma'da and crucifiction I just want to make you aware (since I brought up the topic) that I have learned that several scholars don't read this as a command but as a description an incident, e.g as a narration of something that was actually happening. They explain this point of view mainly with reference to the classic Arabic grammar used in the verse, but also with some other arguments:

link



Regards,

maitri

the_new_mr

Sorry for my absence.

PDN wrote:

Not quite sure what you mean by that. Many Christians, for example, believe idolatry to be sinful but would oppose any attempt to enshrine that in secular law.

That's fair enough. There are others who wouldn't though.

And, once again, I'm forced to say that you shouldn't take any of the current Muslim states as an example of a Sharia law. Saudi Arabia has the core but has a whole load of stuff added on to it that the law has been messed up. Like women not being allowed to drive for example.

As for Turkey. Secular doesn't necessarily mean good. And, as far as I know, the fact that women aren't allowed to wear hijab in government offices or university is not very secular.

Plenty of Muslims are perfectly willing to live in a secular state as long as it doesn't interfere with their own religion and their practicing of it. I would have thought that the majority (all?) of Irish Muslims are a good example of that. But, if say the Irish population suddenly decided to become Muslim (which probably won't happen for another couple of hundred years if it ever happens) then why not implement Sharia law? It would just have to be done right is all.

And, must re-iterate the point that non-Muslims are not governed by hadd in Sharia law (hadd being laws of capital punishment).

the_new_mr

Ataturk is definitely fairly unpopular with a lot of Turks. I know others like him too though. Not sure what the percentage is.

Read an interesting article about it recently here:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1642656,00.html

Peanut

the_new_mr wrote:

... But, if say the Irish population suddenly decided to become Muslim (which probably won't happen for another couple of hundred years if it ever happens) then why not implement Sharia law? ...

I think the fact that any state-sponsored religion (apart from basic humanism, if you could call that a religion) has a tendency to take away individual freedoms is reason enough. We have had enough of that in the past to know that it's not a desirable route to go down. It is narrow, restrictive, closed.

It can't be 'done properly' on the level of a state. It can work in small communities, because the members may have shared beliefs and therefore an interest in making it work, but you can't expand that idea to encompass a nation and expect it to work.

The majority of people in this country are Catholic. Should we go back to the situation in the past, with excessive church influence on the State?
I don't think so.

Wibbs

I think the secularism debate from the Christian and Muslim viewpoints is a funny one. There are basic differences between the two faiths in this. While Christian states have existed in the past and a proportion of Christians would welcome that, the division between the secular and religious is far more evident in Christianity than in Islam from within the faiths.

The Jesus quotes' "Give unto Caesar what is Caesars" and "My kingdom is not of this earth" are examples of the basis for that division even in the Gospels. Even in earlier Christian states that division was there although a far cry from the secularism we would recognise today.

Unlike Islam there has never been a "perfect" Christian state like that presided over by Mohamed that's referenced in the Islamic texts. So it's understandable why Muslims would want a return to that. It's a part and parcel of the faith itself. the idea of secularism in a majority Muslim country would be a hard one to sell.

Islam is a far more everyday, involved faith than Christianity. There are far more rules set down from the start, governing areas like law, government and all the way down to the mundane household stuff.

You can see even here that perfect state referenced and how none of the current Islamic states are up to scratch. For me that's a cop out in a way. You can't have the perfect Islamic state now, even if you believe one existed in the past. So any percieved problem with Islam as a guide to such a state can be ignored on the basis that, "well they(insert country) aren't following the true Islamic guide.

the_new_mr

Sorry you feel it's a cop out Wibbs. Guess you can't be blamed for your honesty anyway.

Just because it didn't work in Ireland in the past doesn't mean it can't (hypothetically) work in the future. That's like saying "Some parents screw up their kids.... don't allow anyone to parent anyone!!"