Is Shariah law really such an awful thing?

Post Reply New Topic

A rough approximation of what Sharia Law looks like to non-Muslims might be what militant atheists might dream up as laws.

Scary and backwards is a very apt description of Sharia Law imo.

to be fair, as someone looking at both the muslim world and the u.s. from the outisde, the u.s. also sounds like "a scary and backwards place" to me. but then again, to be fair, i can perfectly see how anyone from either of those areas of the globe would think and say the same about the place where i live, and i wouldn't disagree

the problem though, the way i see it, is that religious law (islamic or not) is scary and backwards. maybe not in practice (though typically it is), but in theory yes (kind of the reverse of the u.s.). and that's part of why the u.s. seem "scary" to me. americans on average sound much more fanatical in one way or another than what i'm used to see around me

it's important for me to have the right not to care strongly about anything as long as i can see that i'm not hurting anyone. or else i'm in a constant state of fear and anxiety. for me it's personal, but i believe i'm really not the only one who feels the same way about this

Shariah is inferred from the Q'ran and that Hadith by a select few scholars and imams. The Ulima. I prefer to be governed by law that I had a hand in making, or could have a hand in making. Law that is formulated by ordinary human beings who do not believe they have a tight data link to The Almighty, Himself.

If Muslims voluntarily wish to have non-criminal legal matter settled by an Islamic court operating under Shariah and none of the penalties violate civil law, then why not? Voluntary settlement of torts is permitted under the law in most States. Orthodox Jews often resort to Rabbinic Courts to settle their differences. As long as Shariah is not imposed on the unwilling, there is no problem.

There are many modes of settling non-criminal matters by private parties out of court. The law requires that his be done voluntarily and that all parties in the dispute sign a contract in which they agree to the settlement reached by the agency they voluntarily hired. It takes some of t he load of the law courts so it is not a bad thing.

BaalChatzaf said alot of right things. in fact I'm pretty sure that post sums up the thread really good.

OP, I do understand where you come from... people who are born into Sharia law are mostly used to it while westerners used to their beliefs and lifestyle as well so there are going to be different opinions.

Religion can be present in a state's laws as long as it doesn't appear in a ridicolous manner like cutting people's hands off. The thing is, I believe in modernism and integrating religion into the modern society. Everything advances in the end. for example, if Bach were born today he would go to a music store, probably buy a synthesizer and do EDM.

The thing with Islam is that the Ulama have long been disbanded, the gates of Ijtihad are by large considered "closed" therefore there's pretty much no place for evolvement under islamic laws. The opposite, fundamentalists are now trying to clear Islam of all the mystisism (Sufism) and other "bid'a"/unwanted additions/changes and return to the roots - which... were pretty gruesome during the 7th century and following years.

People in islamic countries look at the world and see what they are and have been missing, hence the instabillity in the middle east. If I were a religious muslim (assuming you are one) I'd try and think how to bring back the golden age of Islam delicately, assimilating it within a modern state that keeps its population happy with a pluralistic, liberal approach which allows both religious, seculars, atheists, other religions/gays/etc to coexist.

Shariah in any form, is a *awful* thing.

Depends on how it's practiced, doesn't it??

When it is only required for those who choose to follow Islam, and doesn't involve the killing or forced conversion of unbelievers?? And maybe we can skip the whole FGM thing (or at least standardize it, the way male circumcision has been standardized in the Abrahamic West), and possibly the whole women-as-property thing??

Fine with that. Lots of people think Levitical law is a horrible thing, and that Biblical rules for living, conduct, marriage, et cetera are repressive and backwards. I'm not too keen on stoning homosexuals and adulterers, but personally, I find my life works better if I stick to the Biblical rules.

I do not, however, get to go next door and insist that my neighbor also submit to her husband, or train up her children in an authoritarian manner, or whatever popular interpretations of Biblical rules I believe in.

Those who follow Islamic law don't get to demand that I wear the hijab, niquab, abaya, whatever. They don't get to demand that I never leave the house without being accompanied by my husband or his authorized male representative. They don't get to rape me or harm me and say I deserved it for walking down the street in skinny jeans.

I think Shariah is backwards and one of the reasons why Islamic countries are crappy places to live in. If muslims come here because they didnt like their home or it wasnt safe there, they should bring backwards attitudes that contributed to the downfall of their country with them.

Many countries which are primarily Muslim do not subscribe to Shariah law.

However, the religious authorities within these countries sometimes use Shariah Law as a separate set of laws, just like religious authorities use to use Canon Law apart from a nation's laws during medieval times in Christian countries. Their decisions of these ecclesiastical courts were, and are not, recognized by the government--but they might be recognized by certain populations within those countries that adhere to the law of their religious authorities, rather than the law of the country. Or these populations might adhere to both secular and religious law.

I am sure Turkey and Morocco don't subscribe to it. Algeria is in a civil war against Islamic fundamentalists. Algeria is an authoritative regime, though it is ANTI-Muslim fundamentalism. I doubt that Egypt makes copious use of Sharia Law. Jordan doesn't make use of it, though its population is primarily Muslim; it's more of a traditional-like monarchy.

As far as I know, Saudi Arabia does use it in conjunction with other laws. I would say that any nation which refers to itself as a "Islamic Republic" or whatever probably uses it in conjunction with other laws. Those that don't see themselves as "Islamic Republics" do not.

Nigerian separatists are trying to institute Shariah law in places where they are dominant. Obviously, Nigeria itself doesn't subscribe to it, as it's not primarily a Muslim country, though a strong minority is Muslim.

Frequently, radical Muslims want to generalize Shariah law, make it "the law of the land." This frequently goes against established governments. Many established governments are suspicious of extreme Islamicists, who frequently want to make Shariah Law "the law of the land."

The Shariah law is a nightmare that cab take any society backward.

And no, making nuclear plants isn't enough to be considered advanced and progressive.

No...and 1000 No to Sharia law.