Sharia Law

ChocolateSauce

imported_guy wrote: »

yeah lets start watching bill o riley

Point taken. Let me rephrase that: The respectable media.

harsh crimes need harsh punishment as i said if we had capital punishment for every crime, we wouldnt have the high crime rates we have now.

Universally, countries with harsh legal systems are habitual human rights abusers. A system like you described would be worse than the USSR under Stalin.

it isnt. research before posting

Well it was just introduced in Indonesia-

NY Times wrote:

Under a new Islamic criminal code that goes into effect this month, the Shariah police will be wielding a new and more potent threat: death by stoning for adulterers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28stoning.html?hp

So, yeah, it is punishable by death under Sharia.

Although it isn't allowed to convict a 13-year old, they did anyway.

no they dont. they only report nick griffin getting his ass kicked or man handled by a bunch of anti-nazis

Well I've certainly seen plenty.

ChocolateSauce

and in islam you can only be convicted of adultrey is if there are 3 MALE witnesses, or if you confess

your a retard if you confess, or let 3 men watch you having sex.

And what if a girl (say, 13) is raped by three men, she reports them, and when questioned they all say it was consentual adultery? Because that's what happened.

imported_guy

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

And what if a girl (say, 13) is raped by three men, she reports them, and when questioned they all say it was consentual adultery? Because that's what happened.

cant be a witness if you take part in a crime

5th ammendment aplies in islam

3 people other than an accused or accuser are required for a conviction

she can win the case if she has 3 witnesses male, or else the 3 males can win if they have 3 witnesses

irishconvert

Ok, I think this debate is getting out of control and is proving the original posters point that people have no real idea what Sharia Law is. Please don't post any more isolated cherry picked examples of human rights violations (which are against the teachings in the Qur'an and the sunnah) and call them Sharia Law.

Thanks.

ChocolateSauce

irishconvert wrote: »

Ok, I think this debate is getting out of control and is proving the original posters point that people have no real idea what Sharia Law is. Please don't post any more isolated cherry picked examples of human rights violations (which are against the teachings in the Qur'an and the sunnah) and call them Sharia Law.

Thanks.

Alright, I won't, I'll just reiterate my original point - I don't need to be intimately familiar with a subject to know it is bogus, I just need to know enough to reject it on good grounds, and the fact that Sharia is based in a religion and cannot be altered is enough to make it unacceptable in its entirety.

Mark Hamill

irishconvert wrote: »

Ok, I think this debate is getting out of control and is proving the original posters point that people have no real idea what Sharia Law is. Please don't post any more isolated cherry picked examples of human rights violations (which are against the teachings in the Qur'an and the sunnah) and call them Sharia Law.

Thanks.

Just for future reference then, what country would you consider to be a good example of Shariah law in action?

imported_guy

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Just for future reference then, what country would you consider to be a good example of Shariah law in action?

no country really has sharia law in action

saudi arabia/uae/iran/pakistan etc all have variations of it, or their own judicial system (in the case of iran/pakistan) same with indonesia/malaysia etc, the only people that use the sharia law to "show off" are the taliban, and they are doinitwrong.

doctoremma

af_thefragile wrote: »

Why is Sharia Law frown down upon by the majority of people in the world when they don't even have the slightest clue of what it is?!

People think Sharia Law is all about stoning innocent women to death and chopping off heads and arms and nothing could be further from the truth than that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8366197.stm

We are having a chat about this on the atheism board. Needless to say, this is why I find Sharia law unacceptable in any civilised and humane society. I couldn't care less how "good" the rest of it might be, this is enough to negate the whole shebang.

irishconvert

doctoremma wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8366197.stm

We are having a chat about this on the atheism board. Needless to say, this is why I find Sharia law unacceptable in any civilised and humane society. I couldn't care less how "good" the rest of it might be, this is enough to negate the whole shebang.

I wonder if you even bothered to read the article you quoted before coming on here looking for a reaction. It is about "al-Shabab's interpretation of Sharia law" (whoever they are).

doctoremma

irishconvert wrote: »

I wonder if you even bothered to read the article you quoted before coming on here looking for a reaction. It is about "al-Shabab's interpretation of Sharia law" (whoever they are).

Yep, I read it all. And I've read many before. And seen the videos etc. I came here to see if anyone was making any comment over it. I found this thread.

Are you saying that Sharia law does not call for the stoning of people who commit adultery? Maybe the judge was bit zealous, employing stoning for someone who was unmarried? But it certainly stands for those who are married at the time of adultery. And it seems that it applies to divorcees as well, who according to a huge swathe of the world, are footloose and fancy-free. And just, stoning!! It had been chosen as a punishment because of the pain and suffering it causes. How can any society think this is just? How much of this is against Sharia law?

irishconvert

doctoremma wrote: »

Yep, I read it all. And I've read many before. And seen the videos etc. I came here to see if anyone was making any comment over it. I found this thread.

Are you saying that Sharia law does not call for the stoning of people who commit adultery?

Certain interpretation of Sharia do call for stoning of people who commit adultery. However in reality it is very difficult for a conviction to take place. There had to be four witnesses so the person would really have to have sex in public. Also they can't be convicted if they were intoxicated at the time or if they are non-Muslim. The ruling is really meant to deter people from commiting adultry, not as a punishment.

Even in this case the judge didn't sentance the man to stoning, only the woman, so he clearly was not following Sharia law.

doctoremma

irishconvert wrote: »

Certain interpretation of Sharia do call for stoning of people who commit adultery.

And here is the answer to the OP as to why people will not accept Sharia law as of any benefit.

irishconvert wrote: »

However in reality it is very difficult for a conviction to take place. There had to be four witnesses so the person would really have to have sex in public.

I don't think I'm wrong in saying those witnesses can witness either the act or a confession of the act. And in a society like this, if four men say a woman is guilty and the woman denies it, who is the judge going to believe?

The above is irrelevant actually. You are admitting people get stoned for a crime that is only a crime to religion, not in international law. I should have stopped with the first comment.

irishconvert wrote: »

Even in this case the judge didn't sentance the man to stoning, only the woman, so he clearly was not following Sharia law.

The man had never been married so did not commit adultery. The woman had been married, hence the charge of adultery, even though she was divorced.

Hobart

I accept that there is little known about Sharia in the west, only that which is fed from the media, and most of that is hyped and skewed to fit an agenda. However, what I do find objectionable is any form of religious punishment which "do call for stoning of people who commit adultery", and any religious who act in the self-belief that they are working for a higher being in carrying out this barbaric religious retribution. It's one particular area of Islam where, I believe, an Islamic Pope would make a huge difference to the religion.

doctoremma

Hobart wrote: »

I accept that there is little known about Sharia in the west, only that which is fed from the media, and most of that is hyped and skewed to fit an agenda. However, what I do find objectionable is any form of religious punishment which "do call for stoning of people who commit adultery", and any religious who act in the self-belief that they are working for a higher being in carrying out this barbaric religious retribution. It's one particular area of Islam where, I believe, an Islamic Pope would make a huge difference to the religion.

Islamic pope: to educate those who don't know much about Islam or to educate those who feck it up beyond humanity?

irishconvert

doctoremma wrote: »

And here is the answer to the OP as to why people will not accept Sharia law as of any benefit.

I did say certain interpretations. Certain interpretations of Christianity in Africa burn people alive for practising witchcraft. It doesn't make all of the other teachings null and void because of it. For example part of sharia law is that Muslims have to donate 1.5% of their wealth to charity each year. Do you think that law should be abolished because some people in Somalia believe in stoning people to death for adultry?

doctoremma wrote: »

I don't think I'm wrong in saying those witnesses can witness either the act or a confession of the act. And in a society like this, if four men say a woman is guilty and the woman denies it, who is the judge going to believe?

Leaving the punishment aside for a minute, if four men in this country stood up as witness in a court of law and said something against one woman, chances are the judge would believe the majority.

doctoremma wrote: »

The above is irrelevant actually. You are admitting people get stoned for a crime that is only a crime to religion, not in international law. I should have stopped with the first comment.

Again, it is an aspect of Sharia that the people in that part of Somalia believe. It is by no means practised by all Muslims, in fact the majority of Muslim countries do not stone people to death. This article is just another example of the anti-Muslim bias in the media.

doctoremma

irishconvert wrote: »

I did say certain interpretations. Certain interpretations of Christianity in Africa burn people alive for practising witchcraft. It doesn't make all of the other teachings null and void because of it. For example part of sharia law is that Muslims have to donate 1.5% of their wealth to charity each year. Do you think that law should be abolished because some people in Somalia believe in stoning people to death for adultry?

I think you're downplaying far too severely here. It's not just a small group of renegades in Somalia who are twisting Islam beyond recognition. This is a wider problem. Muslims should WANT to give money to charity - if it wasn't part of their religious law, are you saying that Muslims would stop giving to charity? re: Christians and witch hunts - just as sickening.

irishconvert wrote: »

This article is just another example of the anti-Muslim bias in the media.

I think you're deliberately whitewashing.

dvpower

irishconvert wrote: »

This article is just another example of the anti-Muslim bias in the media.

Why?
Is it untrue? Is it true but not newsworthy? Was it an isolated case unrepresentative of Islam? Is the BBC an anti Muslim media outlet?

This type of story appears to be an aspect of Islamic culture in some countries. While I'm sure most Muslims would abhor it, the anti Muslim bias you speak of isn't helped by you writing this off as anti Muslim bias.

irishconvert

doctoremma wrote: »

I think you're downplaying far too severely here. It's not just a small group of renegades in Somalia who are twisting Islam beyond recognition. This is a wider problem. Muslims should WANT to give money to charity - if it wasn't part of their religious law, are you saying that Muslims would stop giving to charity? re: Christians and witch hunts - just as sickening.

Your original point is that you don't agree with any of Sharia law due to this stoning in Somalia. I am simply asking the question do you disagree with the sharia law of obliging Muslims to give a percentage of their wealth to charity? Do you think this rule it should be negated?

irishconvert

dvpower wrote: »

Why?
Is it untrue? Is it true but not newsworthy? Was it an isolated case unrepresentative of Islam? Is the BBC an anti Muslim media outlet?

This type of story appears to be an aspect of Islamic culture in some countries. While I'm sure most Muslims would abhor it, the anti Muslim bias you speak of isn't helped by you writing this off as anti Muslim bias.

Can you point me to any positive media stories about Islam? I know you can do a Google search and probably pull up some obscure story but from your memory can you actually remember any positive media store about Islam or Muslims? I certainly can't.

doctoremma

irishconvert wrote: »

Your original point is that you don't agree with any of Sharia law due to this stoning in Somalia. I am simply asking the question do you disagree with the sharia law of obliging Muslims to give a percentage of their wealth to charity? Do you think this rule it should be negated?

My original post was to address the question about why people will not accept Sharia law. It is because, at the far end of the spectrum, Sharia law enables and even promotes some things that most of the world regard as abominations. I understand that many Muslims may feel the same; but Sharia law as it is perceived in the West will always be defined by this type of barbarism. Personally, I think that there are single point issues that can negate a whole system and warrant it unworthy of consideration. I might think, for example, that the BNP have some good economic policies but because of one single issue re: immigration/repatriation, I am prepared to disregard the party as a viable political alternative. People will fear (usually correctly) that to give an inch means losing a mile.

Do I agree re: charity giving. Actually, no, I don't think it's a very good basis for a rule - I think people should give freely according to their own desire and their own means.

I generally don't care how people live their lives, as long as it doesn't bother me and as long as it doesn't contravene the recognised international legal framework that we would all try to live by. However, I have general objections to any religion defining a law so would reject Sharia law along with, say, Christians trying trying to impose laws against homosexuality because God said so. I don't think Sharia law is a model of equality but that accusation might also be levelled at other religious codes. I think that women often don't recourse to a country's law even now, let alone if Sharia law were to become more mainstream.

Mark Hamill

imported_guy wrote: »

no country really has sharia law in action

saudi arabia/uae/iran/pakistan etc all have variations of it, or their own judicial system (in the case of iran/pakistan) same with indonesia/malaysia etc, the only people that use the sharia law to "show off" are the taliban, and they are doinitwrong.

But what does that say about Sharia Law? Even muslim countries dont actually employ the full thing. I thought it was believed that it was divinely authored, is it not considered good enough to be fully enforced?

Mark Hamill

irishconvert wrote: »

I did say certain interpretations. Certain interpretations of Christianity in Africa burn people alive for practising witchcraft. It doesn't make all of the other teachings null and void because of it. For example part of sharia law is that Muslims have to donate 1.5% of their wealth to charity each year. Do you think that law should be abolished because some people in Somalia believe in stoning people to death for adultry?

If muslims truely believed in giving to charity then the law should be entirely unneccessary. Its not charity if you are forced to do it.

irishconvert wrote: »

Again, it is an aspect of Sharia that the people in that part of Somalia believe. It is by no means practised by all Muslims, in fact the majority of Muslim countries do not stone people to death.

But it is an aspect of Sharia Law though. Thats the problem, if sharia law is a perfect law created by god, why are there aspects to it that most modern day muslims disagree with?

Mark Hamill

irishconvert wrote: »

Can you point me to any positive media stories about Islam? I know you can do a Google search and probably pull up some obscure story but from your memory can you actually remember any positive media store about Islam or Muslims? I certainly can't.

Can you point to any positive media stories about any religion? Can you point to positive media stories about Judaism and Christianity from inside a muslim country? The media isn't anti mulsim, its merely pro sensationalism because this is what sells more papers. There was plenty of coverage for the ryan report when that came out, even though its bad coverage for christianity.

Hobart

doctoremma wrote: »

Islamic pope: to educate those who don't know much about Islam or to educate those who feck it up beyond humanity?

Neither..but for reference you should look up the First Vatican Council and Vatican II.

Although they are far from a perfect solution, to an almost impossible problem, they do go some way in trying to address issues of scripture.

The problem I see with the Qur'an, is that there are so many interpretations of what the angel Gabriel actually meant, but the religion (imo) lacks a single figurehead (like a pope) who has the position to decide on what was meant.

If that remains the case, and it probably will, you will always end up with "radical" elements that can use the religious text to further their mis-guided beliefs in what was actually meant.

doctoremma

Hobart wrote: »

Neither..but for reference you should look up the First Vatican Council and Vatican II.

Although they are far from a perfect solution, to an almost impossible problem, they do go some way in trying to address issues of scripture.

The problem I see with the Qur'an, is that there are so many interpretations of what the angel Gabriel actually meant, but the religion (imo) lacks a single figurehead (like a pope) who has the position to decide on what was meant.

If that remains the case, and it probably will, you will always end up with "radical" elements that can use the religious text to further their mis-guided beliefs in what was actually meant.

Do you believe that if an Islamic pope said that, say, texts on the stoning of women (and men) had been misinterpreted and it was to be considered a completely non-Muslim thing to do, would people listen? The equivalent head of the Catholic Church has generally accepted evolution but that doesn't stop millions of people still living/teaching as if Creationism was true.

And by the by, just to clarify, it's not just the stoning aspect that's the problem here. If the woman had been shot outright, it would still be horrific because I don't consider adultery anything other than a moral issue for the persons involved.

irishconvert

doctoremma wrote: »

but Sharia law as it is perceived in the West will always be defined by this type of barbarism. Personally, I think that there are single point issues that can negate a whole system and warrant it unworthy of consideration.

With all due respect but that is a really ridiculous arguement. It's like saying we should abolish the whole banking system because a few people at the top stole from us.

Hobart

doctoremma wrote: »

Do you believe that if an Islamic pope said that, say, texts on the stoning of women (and men) had been misinterpreted and it was to be considered a completely non-Muslim thing to do, would people listen?

I think some people would, and I also think that some would not, a bit like the current situation with Catholics. Your question is a clear demonstration of what exactly is wrong with the interpretation of the Qur'an, in that there are far to many chiefs, and each is allowed have his interpretation on what the scripture means.

If you had one "big chief" and he said (as the pope has in the past) that he accepts that the scriptures say this, but that he interprets it in this way, so we should live XYZ way, I think it would go in some way towards countering the (incorrect) interpretation of some elements of Isalm in the west.

The equivalent head of the Catholic Church has generally accepted evolution but that doesn't stop millions of people still living/teaching as if Creationism was true.

No it doesn't, but at least the Church has a "position" on it. As you probably already know, the conflict between church and science has been a very long one, and it is far from resolved, however some people are questioning Darwins theories as well though....

And by the by, just to clarify, it's not just the stoning aspect that's the problem here. If the woman had been shot outright, it would still be horrific because I don't consider adultery anything other than a moral issue for the persons involved.

I appreciate that, but there are elements of the Old Testament that advocate horrendous crimes against women, and guess what?, some elements of "radical Catholics" believe that they should be carried out..

irishconvert

doctoremma wrote: »

Do you believe that if an Islamic pope said that, say, texts on the stoning of women (and men) had been misinterpreted and it was to be considered a completely non-Muslim thing to do, would people listen? The equivalent head of the Catholic Church has generally accepted evolution but that doesn't stop millions of people still living/teaching as if Creationism was true.

And by the by, just to clarify, it's not just the stoning aspect that's the problem here. If the woman had been shot outright, it would still be horrific because I don't consider adultery anything other than a moral issue for the persons involved.

Why do people downplay the impact of adultry? Which do you think causes more hurt, a woman being pickpocketed and losing their purse, or a woman who has been cheated on by her husband?

Why does society think the pick pocket should be punished but not the cheating husband? Islamic law decrees that there should be a punishment for the person who commits adultry. Forget about the actual punishment for a moment, we can come back to it but do you accept that adultry has a more devistating effect on the victim than simple pick pocketing?

doctoremma

irishconvert wrote: »

With all due respect but that is a really ridiculous arguement. It's like saying we should abolish the whole banking system because a few people at the top stole from us.

This is the ridiculous argument. The banking system is a standard operating procedure, not a rule of law. It is not a system based on abolsute authority. Like any SOP, it is open to change and accountability.

doctoremma

irishconvert wrote: »

Why do people downplay the impact of adultry?

Can you clarify in what way this woman was adulterous? Remember, she was divorced i.e. single and a free individual. She was punished, by torturous death, for a "crime" that hurt nobody. Can you describe the criminal "impact" of her actions? Can you tell me how it was anybody else's business except the woman and her partner?

irishconvert wrote: »

Forget about the actual punishment for a moment, we can come back to it but do you accept that adultry has a more devistating effect on the victim than simple pick pocketing?

I am not downplaying the impact of adultery in a relationship, with or without kids, but that clearly doesn't apply to this case.

In terms of damage to myself, I would rather be (non-violently) pickpocketed. But I would not feel a desire to recourse to law if my partner was adulterous. It is a matter for me to decide his fate, not the state. He has hurt nobody except me. He is not able to repeat the crime the next day to someone else. He is not a menace to people in general.