Sharia Law, Here?

Futurism

Sharia Law? In my country?

Turtwig

partyatmygaff wrote: »

True he did, but did he specify to kill anyone who stands in your way or trys to curb your progress? The crazy people of the middle ages turned to killing people, it wasn't prescribed in their holy book or by Jesus. However in this case, it is indeed prescribed.

You obviously haven't read the bible or wilfully ignored part of it.;)

Nodin

I see the tilting at windmills continues apace.....

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

You obviously haven't read the bible or wilfully ignored part of it.;)

It's true that there were holy wars in the Jewish scriptures. In the Christian scriptures mercy generally comes before punishment.

Mike 1972

In terms of womens rights the adoption of sharia law in Ireland would amount to little more than a return to the situation which existed until comparitavely recently.

philologos

dvpower wrote: »

Or maybe they won't. Not all Muslims favour Sharia law.
On the other hand, there might be some merit in adopting some aspects of Sharia right now, e.g. as it pertains to banking.

Most Muslims seem to be in the favour of Sharia jurispudence and justice. I don't see why they wouldn't be. Muslims believe that Islam is the holy path of their god in the same way as I believe that Christianity is the holy path of the Lord.

The Christian scriptures encourage respect to the State. Christianity was never intended to lead the State if we are to go by Pauline influences, but rather it was intended to exist alongside the State as a moral path for it's citizens to follow. Augustine in his book the City of God argues for this model after the fall of Rome.

BroomBurner

Prob said already, but we should be moving away from any kind of religion affecting the law, not adopting different ones.

Secularism all the way.

philologos

It's impossible to have an entirely secular state, unless people support separating faith from individuals. I think all views should be free to discuss in a political setting, but no one view should be given precadence. This includes a view that has an atheist bias, to a view that has a Christian bias. The most reasonable should be chosen irrespective of where it comes from.

BroomBurner

Jakkass wrote: »

It's impossible to have an entirely secular state, unless people support separating faith from individuals. I think all views should be free to discuss in a political setting, but no one view should be given precadence. This includes a view that has an atheist bias, to a view that has a Christian bias. The most reasonable should be chosen irrespective of where it comes from.

Nope, religion should not equal law.

mloc

I would literally go to war to prevent Sharia law, or any similar style of law, entering Ireland.

I sincerly doubt that it will ever be an issue. Let the religious crazies continue their crazyness, best not to give them too much of a soapbox lest they start getting illusions of grandeur.

philologos

BroomBurner wrote: »

Nope, religion should not equal law.

You didn't read my post clearly. I never said religion should equal law. I merely said that both religious and non-religious views should be considered. The most reasonable and pragmatic view irrespective of whether that comes from a Christian mindset or an atheists mindset. That's truly embracing a pluralism. Otherwise it's ingenuine.

My viewpoint of how religion should be involved in a secular society is as the Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd described:

A [truly] Christian perspective on contemporary policy debates may not prevail. It must nonetheless be argued. And once heard, it must be weighed, together with other arguments from different philosophical traditions, in a fully contestable secular polity. A Christian perspective, informed by a social gospel or Christian socialist tradition, should not be rejected contemptuously by secular politicians as if these views are an unwelcome intrusion into the political sphere. If the churches are barred from participating in the great debates about the values that ultimately underpin our society, our economy and our polity, then we have reached a very strange place indeed.

That's my philosophy. Not just a State for unbelievers, but for all views including Christian ones to be considered.

irish_bob

asdasd wrote: »

Who knows? Islam is, by Western standards, in it's entirety illberal. The only liberal muslim is a secular muslim, of which there are a few. There is a possibility of integration, but in general that would involve efforts to integrate.

the blend thing is nonsense. What is the blend between gay marriage and gay beheadings? Is it just to ban homosexuality, pleasing neither side. Cultures can blend if they have similarities in common, Islam can't blend with secularism unless it actually loses most of what it believes in, and monotheistic religions only do that as people discard their beliefs. This has happened to Christianity, outside of the American Southern States, however it may not happen to Islam.

To assume that it will is to either assume that Western culture is superior, and will obviously cause an integration, or that all histories follow the Western path. Neither is guaranteed.

As I said, when larger muslim populations are actually influencing decisions, along with conservative Christians, or others the liberal gloves will come off. But why not now? Nobody holds back from criticising Catholicism - despite the practice in majority Catholic countries of liberalism - in the UK where it is a minority, and one which was historically despised.

The reason is both fear, liberal tribalism ( crime thought gets you kicked out of fraternity), and a transfered fear of Islam which cannot be expressed ( it will be clear to future historians that the present form of Angry Secularism dates from 9/11 even if it attacks the Pope more than the Imam).

Secularists bashing Catholicism are taking the easy route.

superb post

catholic bashing is the only remaining acceptable form of prejudice

im an agnostic btw

irish_bob

hooradiation wrote: »

Your assuming that Islam remains static in the intervening period, which doesn't really make much sense. Because nothing ever remains static.
There are reports of young French Muslims becoming more secular, but still very much Muslim.
Not definitive by any measure, but it's probably representative of a good segment of the generation that will be the ones that

And of course you have things like the youth movement in places like Iran, who are a peculiar mix of middle east and west.




So, your theory is that people attack the poor old catholics because the liberal hive mind won't let us attack Islam because.....

actually fuck it, this is a special kind of thinking that requires mental gymnastics that i have no interest in.

islamic societys are less secular than they were a generation ago , children more radical than thier parents etc

philologos

asdasd wrote: »

the blend thing is nonsense. What is the blend between gay marriage and gay beheadings? Is it just to ban homosexuality, pleasing neither side. Cultures can blend if they have similarities in common, Islam can't blend with secularism unless it actually loses most of what it believes in, and monotheistic religions only do that as people discard their beliefs. This has happened to Christianity, outside of the American Southern States, however it may not happen to Islam.

Do you know many Christians who actively read the Bible? Just curious?

A lot of the Christians I have met do take the Scriptures seriously and believe that through Jesus Christ they have new life.

I don't see much truth in what you are saying from my own empirical perspective. It's very much possible for Christianity to remain strong within secular societies.

irish_bob

asdasd wrote: »

I am, yes it does, and yes it does.



because it is deemed "racist" or xenophobic to attack Islam, but not Catholicism even in countries with historical antipathy to Catholicism. Like the UK. Both are minority religions.

Quite simple, really, and no mental gymnastics required. Bashing the Pope when he says he thinks homosexuality a sin not a crime crime, or attacking Catholicism for it's anti-homosexuality is absurd when Imams in the UK think that homosexuality should warrent the death penalty as it does in Saudi Arabia, and other Islamic countries. Meanwhile homosexuality is legal in most Catholic countries, and LGBT partnerships legal in Western European and some South American Catholic countries. In fact if you are born in a country with the rights to same sex marriage it is probably Catholic.

Meanwhile Pim Fortuyn, an actual homosexual activist, who attacked the religion which cant be attacked was deemed a fascist by the Guardian, the fount of anti-Catholicism,

If you are in favour of homosexual rights you would attack Islam first, nutty protestantism second, and Catholicism last.

islam is a sacred cow for the liberal left , catholicism is not , when the pope refuses to aproove contraception , hes a dinasaur and someone who is causing death in africa , when muslims insist on thier wives not going out alone and thier daughters marrying whoever is chosen for them , its cultural difference

the muslim left wing alliance is one of the more bizzare couplings of our time , richard boyd barrett only recently shared a platform with a member of hammass , george galloway is a prominent appologist for islamic terrorism and extremism

FruitLover

Overheal wrote: »

fcussen wrote: »

Muslims will never be a majority in Ireland. To think otherwise is paranoid xenophobic nonsense.

Tell it to White America pal.

Will they understand all those big words?

Turtwig

irish_bob wrote: »

islam is a sacred cow for the liberal left , catholicism is not , when the pope refuses to aproove contraception , hes a dinasaur and someone who is causing death in africa , when muslims insist on thier wives not going out alone and thier daughters marrying whoever is chosen for them , its cultural difference

I don't think you and I know the same secularists,

Islam,Mormomism, Scientology, Christianity,Hindu etc

Get no preferential treatment from anyone.

partyatmygaff

irish_bob wrote: »

islam is a sacred cow for the liberal left , catholicism is not , when the pope refuses to aproove contraception , hes a dinasaur and someone who is causing death in africa , when muslims insist on thier wives not going out alone and thier daughters marrying whoever is chosen for them , its cultural difference

That is a very good point, very true, its all out of fear as its foreign to them and people never want to be seen as racist.

irish_bob wrote: »

islamic societys are less secular than they were a generation ago , children more radical than thier parents etc

I can testify to that, From what has been seen in predominately muslim countries is that the people are getting more and more radical, with more women wearing hijab and the full black cloak and men growing their beards e.t.c on a much larger scale than before.

Turtwig

partyatmygaff wrote: »

That is a very good point, very true, its all out of fear as its foreign to them and people never want to be seen as racist.


I can testify to that, From what has been seen in predominately muslim countries is that the people are getting more and more radical, with more women wearing hijab and the full black cloak and men growing their beards e.t.c on a much larger scale than before.

partyatmygaff

Malty_T wrote: »

Eh? why? Do you just randomly post images or something?

Mike 1972

ScumLord wrote: »

basically if there's a majority of Muslims in Ireland they'll push for Sharia law which is fair enough in a democracy.

If one believes the census figures the majority of the Republics population is Roman Catholic yet divorce was legalised in a referendum ?

Piste

Someone really needs to make a "I have neither the eloquence nor verbosity to express my views, so here's an XKCD comic/picture with a witty slogan I found" picture

philologos

ScumLord wrote: »

This is the big problem with religion. Religion is about personal preference and your social circle, it shouldn't affect the larger community or the state what any individual wants to believe. Even if a person is racist it's not really a problem as long as that person doesn't go out on the street trying to convince everybody else that they should be racist.

If you have people of faith in a society, their ideas will always be able to influence someone else.

As for your analogy of a racist. Obviously I don't share the position that faith is comparable to racism. However, if our society is to recognise:
1) The right to freedom of conscience and religion
2) The right to freely express ones self.

The fusion of these is evangelism, and Christians will always spread their ideas to the wider public, as will Muslims and followers of other ideas.

Think about it this way. If you had a winning lottery ticket, how would it be possible to conceal your happiness about it? People of faith believe they have something far far beyond that, a living relationship with God. This is something that people really want to communicate.

If we are going to respect both of those rights, proselytism has to be legal.

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't see anything wrong with what he's saying, basically if there's a majority of Muslims in Ireland they'll push for Sharia law which is fair enough in a democracy.

Indeed! What's the big deal?

dvpower

mloc wrote: »

I would literally go to war to prevent Sharia law, or any similar style of law, entering Ireland.

Any such laws enacted in Ireland must be passed by the Dáil, so you're saying that you would go to war against your own state to prevent a law that is the democratic will of the people?

irish_bob

dvpower wrote: »

Any such laws enacted in Ireland must be passed by the Dáil, so you're saying that you would go to war against your own state to prevent a law that is the democratic will of the people?

self proclaimed democrats voicing thier support for sharia law , the irony is almost too much to take

philologos

irish_bob wrote: »

self proclaimed democrats voicing thier support for sharia law , the irony is almost too much to take

Democracy isn't as fun when things aren't going your way so it seems.

Personally I'd probably leave the country, or encourage proselytism :pac:

caseyann

dvpower wrote: »

Any such laws enacted in Ireland must be passed by the Dáil, so you're saying that you would go to war against your own state to prevent a law that is the democratic will of the people?

I know i would Sharia law is nothing more than a stone age made up religion for anti humanitarian right and anti women. If you want that law go back to your own country,and not talk about how another country should accept just because they practice it.Our laws are built in to protect all people of every nationality and religion.
God these extremist Muslim fanatics i wish would drop off face of planet.
We dont go to their countries and expect them to start taking our laws:rolleyes:

This is another thing seeing people here actually agree with even thinking of that been passed here in Ireland.:eek::(

I would leave and never call this my home again :mad:

hooradiation

irish_bob wrote: »

islamic societys are less secular than they were a generation ago , children more radical than thier parents etc

Because, once again Islamic societies are a monolithic whole, and single statements like that can be applied to multiple groups within multiple countries in different parts of the world without it being in any way incorrect.

I mean have a closer look at whats happening in Iran right now if you want to see how this image of all of islamic society is a hotbed of radical hatred.

irish_bob wrote: »

islam is a sacred cow for the liberal left , catholicism is not , when the pope refuses to aproove contraception , hes a dinasaur and someone who is causing death in africa , when muslims insist on thier wives not going out alone and thier daughters marrying whoever is chosen for them , its cultural difference

Well, i suppose it's easier to argue against something when you invent the opposing viewpoint yourself.

gurramok

dvpower wrote: »

Any such laws enacted in Ireland must be passed by the Dáil, so you're saying that you would go to war against your own state to prevent a law that is the democratic will of the people?

Yes, count me in. Nobody should dictate how another lives their lifestyle or what they wear or what they eat or drink over barmy religion.

If that Sharia thing came in, i'd expect women to be take up arms to defend defending their right to wear fashionable clothes and men to defend their right to take drink

philologos

gurramok wrote: »

If that Sharia thing came in, i'd expect women to be take up arms to defend defending their right to wear fashionable clothes and men to defend their right to take drink

Who says that Islam stops people wearing fashionable clothes? I mean apart from in Taleban style burqa gear, all a woman is required to do according to the tenets of Islam is wear a hijab or a headscarf, and even still in a lot of Islamic countries people don't wear them at all.

This article when dealing with Islamic and Christian hardline opposition to Beyoncé playing in Egypt also brings to light the Arab singers who perform in a very similar fashion.

Normal Islamic society doesn't stop people doing this. Perhaps in more hardline states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran this is the case, but underneath the surface in both of these countries women have been expressing themselves through fashion.

In most Islamic states hijab is regarded as a choice to be worn when one feels ready to take her Islam seriously. If it isn't a choice it doesn't seem that people are wearing the hijab to serve their god, but rather out of coercion.

As for the drinking, I think we could all do with less anyway.

gurramok

Jakkass wrote: »

Who says that Islam stops people wearing fashionable clothes? I mean apart from in Taleban style burqa gear, all a woman is required to do according to the tenets of Islam is wear a hijab or a headscarf, and even still in a lot of Islamic countries people don't wear them at all.

This article when dealing with Islamic and Christian hardline opposition to Beyoncé playing in Egypt also brings to light the Arab singers who perform in a very similar fashion.

Normal Islamic society doesn't stop people doing this. Perhaps in more hardline states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran this is the case, but underneath the surface in both of these countries women have been expressing themselves through fashion.

In most Islamic states hijab is regarded as a choice to be worn when one feels ready to take her Islam seriously. If it isn't a choice it doesn't seem that people are wearing the hijab to serve their god, but rather out of coercion.

As for the drinking, I think we could all do with less anyway.

We're talking about Sharia law here, not Muslim countries as a whole. For example Lebanon/Turkey/Bosnia are good countries for Muslims to do what they want by and large without interference from religious doctrine.

Name a Sharia law practising country where those freedoms listed are allowed?

fcussen

I wonder if I start a thread about a Terminator-style machine revolution in Ireland will it get to nine pages

mloc

dvpower wrote: »

Any such laws enacted in Ireland must be passed by the Dáil, so you're saying that you would go to war against your own state to prevent a law that is the democratic will of the people?

Absolutely. I'd imagine a civil war/revolution would be a good place to start.

partyatmygaff

mloc wrote: »

Absolutely. I'd imagine a civil war/revolution would be a good place to start.

The question is who will vote them into the dáil in the first place to even get them into a position of any power? In any case, I would say 99.9% of irish people non-affiliated with islam would not vote in a muslim t.d..
I know your gonna say thats racist and that it may be in some lights but when someone with strong catholic beliefs for example is running for election, they get prejudiced against likewise so it is fairly unlikely we will have anybody with the power to change the countries law.

RMD

The fact is, it's so unlikely that a Muslim majority will occur in Ireland within our life time, let alone a Muslim marjority willing to vote for Sharia law. Not every Muslim supports it you know?

dvpower

caseyann wrote: »

I know i would Sharia law is nothing more than a stone age made up religion for anti humanitarian right and anti women.

There are a lot of posters here who seem to have a pretty narrow view of what Sharia is; stoning to death for adultery etc. Needless to say, I wouldn't be in favour of introduing that.

But its actually very broad and covers every aspect of life (as you'd expect from a comprehensive system of law). If we had some aspects of sharia financial and banking law, we mightn't be in the mess we're in now.

When we frame laws here, it is normal to look at what other countries do, particulary other western countries. I don't think it would be a bad thing to also have a look at aspects of sharia to see if there's any merit in it.

caseyann wrote: »

If you want that law go back to your own country,and not talk about how another country should accept just because they practice it.

OK. I'll head back to my own country now... Ok. I'm here. What next? :rolleyes:

caseyann wrote: »

We dont go to their countries and expect them to start taking our laws:rolleyes:

We have international law, mainly framed by western governements.
But back to the point, if we decided to introduce some aspects of sharia law that would be our decision, not something expected of us from outsiders.

nevillethemayan

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The problem is the majority of them that come primarily to have large families to grow islam in the west would support sharia law and that is a very scary future if it does occur.

Yeah, even more scary people believe this nonsense. Maybe there could be an imaginary friend x-factor.

dvpower

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The question is who will vote them into the dáil in the first place to even get them into a position of any power? In any case, I would say 99.9% of irish people non-affiliated with islam would not vote in a muslim t.d..

Yeah. That would never happen.

Oh wait...

sceptre

caseyann wrote: »

I know i would Sharia law is nothing more than a stone age made up religion for anti humanitarian right and anti women.

I've always said something similar about Catholicism.

Not that Islam or Catholicism were actually invented in the Stone age.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The problem is the majority of them that come primarily to have large families to grow islam in the west would support sharia law and that is a very scary future if it does occur.

Ireland will have become an idiocracy long long before then. We're already doing our best based on the beat on the street.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Porkpie wrote: »

Over my beheaded body.

Fixed that up a little bit for you, hope you don't lose the head.

.

nevillethemayan

dvpower wrote: »

Yeah. That would never happen.

Oh wait...

Bhamjee, is that an Indian name, if so isn'there a chance he's Hindu?
Anyway, whatever religio he is I'd rather him than the child of the previous gombeen.

dvpower

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I said voted into dáíl, somehow I doubt he has been voted into the dáil.

Don't worry. I often doubt the nature of reality myself.;)

Wikipedia wrote:

Dr Moosajee Bhamjee (born 4 December 1947) is a former Irish Labour Party politician. He was Ireland's first Muslim Teachta Dála.

nevillethemayan

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Well, Mr.Oh so Knowledgable. How many muslim people do you know aswell as their families and do you know them well enough to know their views on something like this? Its not nonsense, That is the mindset of a frighteningly large amount of muslim people, *Generally the more radical they are, the more children they have, as Osama bin laden said "To Grow the army of islam"* Not everyone is a large scale terrorist as he is, but some have aspirations of one day seeing an entire world controlled by Islam by simple majority. Its no conspiracy theory.

How long will it take 'em to breed to the point of 3 million? Ireland will probably be under the control of the IMF by then anyway!
How are you so knowledgable about their mindset.
And my view on Sharia is that it's nonsense and has no place in any modern country (because it's based on an ancient book of myths and you can't have a two tier justice system) and never will in Ireland. I'd rather if the religous mumbo jumbo was removed from the Irish constitution.

nevillethemayan

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Within 100-200 years if they continue to grow as now and immigration continues, couple that with lower birth rates from native irish people and they will have a sizeable number in ireland, sizeable enough to seize some power.
I am knowledgable about their mindset for two reasons, I know a lot of muslim people living here and I also know how to read arabic so I can read all what they do not expect foreigners to read, let me ask you something, How much exactly do you know about their mindset?
The "Religious Mumbo Jumbo" in the irish constitution as you call it has 0 bearing today on Irish life today, Why you mentioned it in this thread which has nothing whatsoever to do with the catholic church, I have no idea.

I mentioned it as not only muslims hane nonsense attitudes to religion. As was said before the muslim world is not some identical monolithic block, anyway why the f*** would they come to Ireland right now? I lived with a muslim from turkey for a while, he was very secular as is most of that country. Anyone who is of the nonsense opinion you described and lives in a non muslim country is a hypocrite as sharia wasn't able to provide a stable life in their own countries. Anyway this thread is full of paranoid nonsense.

philologos

nevillethemayan wrote: »

I mentioned it as not only muslims hane nonsense attitudes to religion. As was said before the muslim world is not some identical monolithic block, anyway why the f*** would they come to Ireland right now? I lived with a muslim from turkey for a while, he was very secular as is most of that country. Anyone who is of the nonsense opinion you described and lives in a non muslim country is a hypocrite as sharia wasn't able to provide a stable life in their own countries. Anyway this thread is full of paranoid nonsense.

Why is being "secular" good? Governments are best secular, but why on earth should individuals be secular? It's about separating the church from the state, not the people from the church.

People should be encouraged to be who they are and to live by the beliefs they have chosen.

Suppression of religion isn't "forward thinking".

nevillethemayan

Jakkass wrote: »

Why is being "secular" good? Governments are best secular, but why on earth should individuals be secular? It's about separating the church from the state, not the people from the church.

People should be encouraged to be who they are and to live by the beliefs they have chosen.

Suppression of religion isn't "forward thinking".

I'm not talking about supressing it, just not giving it a priveleged status. People can believe whatever the hell they want but it doesn't make their opinions more correct or exempt them form criticism.

seanybiker

its never gonna happen so I couldnt give a shit.

philologos

nevillethemayan wrote: »

I'm not talking about supressing it, just not giving it a priveleged status. People can believe whatever the hell they want but it doesn't make their opinions more correct or exempt them form criticism.

I assume being "secular" (atheist or agnostic) also doesn't exclude them from criticism.

If so I would have thought what you were saying was patently obvious.

nevillethemayan

seanybiker wrote: »

its never gonna happen so I couldnt give a shit.

Exactly, the only threat to the Irish way of life is from irish people. It's not because of muslims the language is dying, the hill of tara is getting dozed, not their fault for the greed that happened during the credit tiger or for the emigration to come. The country has bigger things to worry about, by all means extremism should be stamped out but no need for ober reaction.

nevillethemayan

Jakkass wrote: »

I assume being "secular" (atheist or agnostic) also doesn't exclude them from criticism.

If so I would have thought what you were saying was patently obvious.

No it doesn't.