Sharia Debate

robindch

Schuhart wrote: »

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.

I'm reminded of a weirder-than-usual dinner with one of Riyadh's better restaurants a couple of years back with a guy who's on the Sharia Compliance committee of one of the country's top banks and who spent much of the evening explaining how the banks work in Saudi. The details are complex, but it's enough to know that the same software that runs the core banking systems, and the credit and debit card networks in western Europe, runs in Saudi too. At the time, his company was considering dealing in some Iranian software, but the mods for the Saudi market were too extensive. When I asked him why there needed to be mods at all, when both countries had fully Sharia-compliant banking systems, overseen by powerful religious committees, he flashed one of his trademark toothy grins and told me that the Iranian's weren't interpreting Sharia correctly.

BTW, both Iran and Saudi issue credit cards.

.

ironingbored

The problem as always lies in the act of giving religious belief respect it hardly deserves. By letting in any part of sharia law, society as a whole is giving deference to something that under any normal circumstances wouldn't be the case. We are saying yes some of what your god allegedly says can be used to resolve disputes. Unfortunately, give an inch and a mile will be taken.

ChocolateSauce

Thanks everyone for the advice.

Dades wrote: »

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".

You're not. Give an inch and they'll push for a mile. It's not just that, I believe a civil sharia court would inevitably lead to injustice against women. On paper they would be consenting, but some Muslim women live in total submission to their male relatives and would be coerced into agreeing to be bound by a court which would be sexist.

Furthermore, even if there were aspects which would appear to be favourable, it would then be unfair to those who are not Muslim! You cannot have different laws for different citizens. If they get Sharia, then I demand to be dealt with in an atheist court which has my own "atheist values". Indeed, it would set a precedent where every religion or creed could claim special treatment, and society could very well degenerate into a mish-mash of different laws for different people. Furthermore, it would open the door to deal with non-Muslims in Muslim court.



The debate is Tuesday in UCD at 7pm. I still have to contact the law society to get a slot. I was going to do it on Friday but I wasn't in that day , I was at the doctor. It might be too late. I'll certainly attend the debate and will probably ask questions and make comments if I don't get a slot. It will be an audience of about 150-300 staff and students.

Schuhart

robindch wrote: »

When I asked him why there needed to be mods at all, when both countries had fully Sharia-compliant banking systems, overseen by powerful religious committees, he flashed one of his trademark toothy grins and told me that the Iranian's weren't interpreting Sharia correctly.

BTW, both Iran and Saudi issue credit cards.

Dang, you mean God didn't clearly anticipate the concept of consumer credit? I feel the hand of Satan at work.

robindch

Schuhart wrote: »

Dang, you mean God didn't clearly anticipate the concept of consumer credit? I feel the hand of Satan at work.

Not sure I'd bring Satan into it, though I do like the idea of Shaitan whispering to people through ads for credit cards.

Nah, like religion turning out to be subject to evolution, even the baddest god must bow down before economics.