Sharia Debate

ChocolateSauce

Hey everyone,

I'm thinking of participating in a public debate about Sharia law. Obviously, I'll be against it, and my instincts tell me to take the hard line approach but my brain says maybe a (slightly) softer tone would get more listeners.

I was hoping you could share your thoughts? What do you think would be the best approach? Are there any points you think I should make or focus on? Any advice? I've never publically debated before. Is there anything you think I definitely shouldn't say? From a debating point that is; I have zero problem offending people, particularly Muslims.

Attending the debate will be imams and representitives of Islam in Ireland. There is also a legal expert, but no atheist speakers.

Zillah

What's the setting/audience demographic and what do you hope to have achieved at the end of the debate?

ChocolateSauce

It's in UCD, formal structured debate. I hope to convince the audience that Sharia is barbaric and should be vilified at home and abroad.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

and you've spent how many years studying sharia around the world?

ChocolateSauce

Mordeth wrote: »

and you've spent how many years studying sharia around the world?

Enough to make up my mind (and the more I learn about it, the more convinced I am that my inital presumption was the correct one).

Zillah

Then I'd reccomend you slam Sharia law and emphasise how at odds it is to Western values and human dignity in general. Avoid hitting religion or God altogether to prevent alienating anyone you don't need to. Make sure you triple check your facts too, especially the more negative ones, because they'll be doing damage control and would like nothing more than to paint you as an ignorant Westerner misrepresenting the peaceful word of God.

Can I come?

Dades

Don't forget to have a good read up on the type of sharia laws that were mentioned in that recent kerfuffle involving the Archbishop of Canterbury.

They mention innocent sounding "disputes" between "consenting parties" which despite their fluffy, 'community friendly' overtures still involve the practice of Islamic law over the laws of a democracy.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

jews are allowed solve disputes in rabbincal courts in some parts of the US and I think in the Uk as well, so why not muslims? if both parties agree to the conditions and the legal setting, so long as the law of the land isn't breached what's the problem?

robindch

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Are there any points you think I should make or focus on?

I suppose the sharia-compliant Chop-chop square in Riyadh might be worth a mention, or the case of the cleric here in Indonesia who's dropped himself into hot water for marrying a Sharia-compliant 12-year old girl. Or just contact the Council of Ex-muslims of Britain and see what they have to say. First-hand experience is unbeatable.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Any advice? I've never publically debated before.

Be careful. Quite likely, you'll be up against people who make a good living from public windbaggery.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Is there anything you think I definitely shouldn't say?

"You know, maybe you're right after all".

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Attending the debate will be imams and representitives of Islam in Ireland. There is also a legal expert, but no atheist speakers.

Who'll be listening to this debate?

death1234567

Mordeth wrote: »

jews are allowed solve disputes in rabbincal courts in some parts of the US and I think in the Uk as well, so why not muslims? if both parties agree to the conditions and the legal setting, so long as the law of the land isn't breached what's the problem?

Isn't the point that Sharia law does break the law of the land routinely?

cavedave

If two adults of sound mind decide to enter into a contract with each other should they not be bound by the rules of that contract? Obviously there are certain exceptions to this you cannot sell something you dont know the value of (your soul for example).

But in general if people want to use a tradition of civil contracts that is different from our as long as it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg why not let them work away? Granted this is not the same as sharia law which includes criminal elements. But for purely civil matter for example marriage why not let Muslims or anyone else enter into whatever contracts they see fit?

Libertarian atheists in favor of gay marriage and Sharia law. I can see my political party being popular....

Dades

There is a bigger picture.

I've never heard the 'Western World' threatened with Jewification or Gayification.

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

There is a bigger picture.

I've never heard the 'Western World' threatened with Jewification or Gayification.

Ive seen plenty on conspiracy theory videos about Jews secretly running the world/orchestrating 9-11 etc.
And what about the 'gay agenda' that is supposed to be assaulting the United States.

I'd say the OP's best bet would be to highlight the treatment of women under Sharia law, get the female audience members on your side.

Let us know how it goes.

cavedave

Dades There is a bigger picture.

I've never heard the 'Western World' threatened with Jewification or Gayification.

But it has been threatened by communisification, witchification, Hippiesation and if you class the western world as that which believes in the enlightenment creationists.

I'd say the OP's best bet would be to highlight the treatment of women under Sharia law, get the female audience members on your side.

Let us know how it goes.

Good point. Libertarian rantings may never come up but some response to Mordeth's

"so long as the law of the land isn't breached what's the problem?"

might be worth considering

Rev Hellfire

Dades wrote: »

I've never heard the 'Western World' threatened with Jewification or Gayification.

Do you honestly believe the western world is in danger from Islam ?

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Do you honestly believe the western world is in danger from Islam ?

I wouldn't use the word danger. But I'd be less inclined to bend over for a religion that has the stated aims of converting the planet. Be that only on principle or not.

The point is a lot of us would like to see a proper secular society, and allowing certain communities a green card to practice their religious laws is hardly progressive in this regard.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

so you're all for freedom to choose, so long as they make the choice you like?

a secular society would be a wonderful thing if it grows naturally, but you try to force that on people you end up with china or soviet russia. Force is the problem here, if they're not hurting anybody but themselves then it's not up to us to intervene. Honour killings, chopping hands off and that kind of barbarity is already covered by the laws in western countrys and any muslim who is caught doing that oughta get the same treatment under the law as a christian or atheist, but if two people want to enter into a sharia contract and have that contract disupute settled in a sharia court i oughta be up to them. If we give a damn about freedom we have to give a damn about other peoples freedom to do things we hate, so long as no one's rights are trampled on.

The_Minister

death1234567 wrote: »

Isn't the point that Sharia law does break the law of the land routinely?

No.
The type of Sharia law that might be brought in is voluntary, and has only civil jurisdiction.

Dades

Mordeth wrote: »

so you're all for freedom to choose, so long as they make the choice you like?

Freedom to choose what? The laws we are governed by?

Mordeth wrote: »

if they're not hurting anybody but themselves then it's not up to us to intervene.

I'm sure I must be misreading this.

Mordeth wrote: »

if two people want to enter into a sharia contract and have that contract disupute settled in a sharia court i oughta be up to them.

Can anyone say that is all we are talking about? The skeptic in me says there is more to it than is mentioned.

I don't think we can actually go any further here unless someone can find a document with the proposed laws.

--amadeus--

A key element to successful debating is the ability to counter your opponents points or (better yet) neutralise them.

So for example in your intro you could say "I am sure that there are people here tonight who will try to convince you that there is no issue with consenting adults singing a civil contract framed within Sharia law - later I wil tell you of case X with consequence Y proving how dengerous this idea is"

In other words find teh strongest 3 or 4 arguments FOR sharia law and develop your counter arguments.

On teh broader point I have no issue with sharia based civil contracts as long as the right of appeal to a civil court exists - in other words the contract is still subject to Irish (or wherever) law in the case of dispute.

The_Minister

Dades wrote: »

Freedom to choose what? The laws we are governed by?

It feels weird to be fighting by Mordeth's side, but hey.
They are still bound by all laws of the land.
What is it that you don't get? It is a voluntary, civil court, similar to the arbitration courts that we have.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Dades wrote: »

Freedom to choose what? The laws we are governed by?

no, the freedom to choose how we live our lives. Whether it's how or who we marry, how we divorce, what religion we can belong to or abstain from, etc etc. The freedom to live our lives as we see fit without interference from the state, so long as we don't curtail the rights of any other citizen.

I'm sure I must be misreading this.

Maybe you are. You have every right to hurt yourself, but you have no right to hurt anybody else. I oughta be allowed inject heroin into my eyeballs, but I ought not be allowed fly an airplane half an hour after doing so. It's my right to end my life when and how I choose, but I have no right to end yours. It ought not be the role of the state to protect us from ourselves.

Can anyone say that is all we are talking about? The skeptic in me says there is more to it than is mentioned.

I don't think we can actually go any further here unless someone can find a document with the proposed laws.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. What i'm saying is what two consenting adults get up to is none of my, or your business. So long as they don't involve anyone who didn't give consent, children, defenceless animals.. etc etc. If people choose to give their lives over to a backward, childish, moronic legal system well then that is their choice and you or I don't have the right to force them out of a decision they have made for themselves.

Dades

Thanks for clearing that up (genuinely).
-- edit: that was directed at The Minister - but Mordeths post is duly noted! --

So limb-severing = no, consenting contractual disputes in a civil situation = yes.

Although I must be alone in my paranoia in suspecting some of the less palatable aspects of Sharia might come under the guise of a "contract".

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

aye, I'd be a little uneasy about the limb severing aspects myself. But I'd be opposed to that by any legal system, sharia or western. It's the same reason I'm opposed to the death penalty, not for any particular moral ground (some people do need to be killed) but I'm just uncomfortable with the idea that the state has the legal authority to end life. That;'s the kind of thing that will be abused.

--amadeus--

I think the key is *consent*. There are fairly frequent and fairly disturbing reports of coersion aimed at female muslims to ensure conformity to sharia law that wouldn't fit any definition of consent that I would agree to.

Dades

I'd be more concerned about the parties to 'contracts', and what constitutes consent. Closed doors communities - eg self governing ones - are potential hotbeds of injustice.

It's all well and good to say an aggrieved party has the backup of the Irish judicial system, but this only works if people are not too afraid or unwilling to use it.

ChocolateSauce - when is this debate?!

EDIT: --amadeus-- snap!

pH

The main objection to sharia civil law 'courts' seems to be some idea that one of the parties would be coerced into it. Given both parties are *in dispute*, I don't see how coercion is a problem, in the narrow range where the coercer has the power to coerce someone into a sharia court but not the power to coerce them to do what they wanted in the first place?

In the UK it's quite common for 2 parties to nominate a third party to settle a civil dispute existing between them. As long as both parties agree to the process, then that person's judgement is final, if 2 Muslims want their dispute settled under Sharia law then I don't really see what's wrong with that.

As for the rest of Sharia law, it's pretty much a nonsense, try taking the old testament (or a Ron L Hubbard novel for that matter) and try to make laws out of it. As with most religious writing it's full of ambiguity and contradictions which means in practice "Sharia Law" doesn't exist, just what morality is in favour by the ruling theocracy, much like "civil law" then without the theocracy!

The_Minister

Dades wrote: »

Thanks for clearing that up (genuinely).
-- edit: that was directed at The Minister - but Mordeths post is duly noted! --

So limb-severing = no, consenting contractual disputes in a civil situation = yes.

Although I must be alone in my paranoia in suspecting some of the less palatable aspects of Sharia might come under the guise of a "contract".

A contract cannot to perform an illegal act is not valid.

And as to limb-servering: Oh dear God NO! I think I speak for everyone here whan I say that we oppose limb severing.


Here is probably one of the best speeches given on the reasons for allowing Sharia law courts to operate in Britain.

Dades

I may regret saying this, but I think I'm just against the idea in principle. I regard the idea of Islamic (ergo religious) law with disdain. No matter how much lipstick is put on it, I'm not going to fancy the idea.

And I'm sure it would be the same if someone wanted to introduce (for the first time) some Jewish Orthodox self arbitration idea. I'm just not cool with the idea, whether it affects me or not.

That said, they have the right to request it - and I have the right to ineffectively oppose it from behind the anonymity of my username.

eoin5

Mordeth wrote: »

jews are allowed solve disputes in rabbincal courts in some parts of the US and I think in the Uk as well, so why not muslims? if both parties agree to the conditions and the legal setting, so long as the law of the land isn't breached what's the problem?

I'd absolutely love to see what a heathen court looks like

Schuhart

Maybe I'm being massively unfashionable here, but is the main reason for opposing Sharia law not simply that its claim to be God's law for humans? I mean, I'm sure a society could adopt the substance of the the Sharia as its way of doing business, even the stuff about banning interest payments, if that's what they want to do. But surely each individual measure would need to past public scrutiny as having merit in its own right. Hence, all the stuff about women's evidence being worth half a man's in certain circumstances would have to be justified by proving females have a fifty percent smaller capacity relevant to the context.

I'm not making this point particularly well, but hopefully its clear enough. Is the problem not that anyone can assert they've God's plan for the world, but the law needs to have a somewhat more certain basis.