Is Shariah law really such an awful thing?

Post Reply New Topic

If sharia law comes to Turkey we will GTFO. I don't think it will happen. 30% of Turks don't practice any religion.

I don't think they even had much Sharia Law under the Ottomans.

The Ottomans were aggressive people--but their Islam was very moderate.

The main problem with Erdogan is that he is an authoritarian, not that he is a supporter of religious law (he isn't really). The AKP party is really pseudo-Ottoman nationalist party. In the Islamic world it's hard to separate nationalism from religion because nationalists also fly the flag of religion. It's part of their cultural identity.

Nope...I don't think you'd want to live under that sort of regime.

How can you defend something that lacks the basic tenets of due process? Something essential to ensure justice is served. A system so at odds with feminism, and what you have argued previously.

Barchan you are not very morally consistent.

On the one hand you argue in favour quite modern but sometime questionable values, on the other hand to defend stuff like sharia law which is completely at odd with these. But of course it is not uncommon in activism, to defend anything that is not the status quo, regardless if hypocritical.

Everybody has some cognitive dissidence, but boy oh boy.

Note: I have NOT read this entire thread----just the first page----so, if I seem to be repeating / contradicting someone, it was not my intention.

I think Westerners (including Americans) should mind their own damn business----unless, of course, it DIRECTLY affects Westerners!! If Muslims feel cutting-off someone's hands should be the punishment for theft, who are WE to judge, based-on Western standards / values / morals? We have laws / punishments that other peoples don't agree with----INCLUDING other Westerners----but, it is for US to decide, what is appropriate / acceptable, to US----NO ONE ELSE!! Now, that's not saying that we shouldn't be open to suggestions----I feel when one closes their mind to suggestions, we risk stifling our growth----but, by NO means should ANYONE allow dictation, from anyone ELSE / country, on ANY matter!!

Well, I'm fairly certain that the Yazidi girls and women who are raped on a daily basis in ISIS-controlled territories never agreed to be subjected to sexual slavery...

But hey... who WE to judge, based on Western standards / values / morals? After all, it is for ISIS to decide what is appropriate... no one else...

[Oh, and I can easily compile a longer list of atrocities - including outright genocides - that do not directly affect westerners...]

Let them make it the Law of -their- land, not of MY land.

When a person become a citizens he takes an oath to uphold the constitution. When a foreigner visits the U.S. he knows he is bound by the laws of this country. Under no circumstances does Sharia have or ought to have legal status in the United States.

Now if two Muslims having a civil dispute (non-criminal) dispute should be permitted to engage any non-government entity to settle their grievance (provided both parties agree to the entity and the basis of settlement) that is cool . For example Orhodox Jews sometimes use a rabbinic court to settle non-criminal matters. Both parties agree to be bound under Jewish law as interpreted by the Rabbis (this is laid out in detail in the Talmud). No harm there. Both parties are willing to abide by the judgement of the rabbinic court and there is no action taken which is illegal under civil law.

Using non-governmental means to settle non-criminal disputes takes the load off the government operated courts.

i think we (anyone) can judge anyone we want, and probably benefit from having opinions on matters that don't affect us directly. every society and every social system is full of inconsistencies. some more than others. differences don't necessarily mean something bad, but inconsistencies do. and it's good to be aware of them, because history repeats itself. and also because, in our current era, things that happen anywhere on the globe can have repercussions anywhere else on the globe, faster than you might think

that being said, i don't think any country has the inherent right or the inherent duty to intervene in internal affairs of other countries. it's a matter of deals and treaties and general diplomacy and economy. each case is unique

as for the choice of law thing, i see no problem with it either. it's a pretty normal thing, really. whether it's religious or not, i don't think it matters, as long as it's optional

Oh, I'm sure you CAN compile a much longer list; but, I wasn't talking about ISIS----I was addressing the title / topic of this thread (OP), only. IMO, Shariah and ISIS are two different things. To ME, that's like one saying ALL Christians are like the members of the Westboro Baptist Church.

A lot of people in the middle east don't agree with sharia law...and are moving away from religion. I can judge it however I want I don't think the U.S can fix anything by starting some war or indiscriminately blowing up people there so I don't suggest that but I still have every right to judge it. Also its not like everyone over there believes things are as they should be, lots of people question the government and religion and even that can be very risky depending on what country they're in....maybe more awareness should be brought to this.

If biblical law was applied, then christians as a whole probably would look a lot more like westboro baptist. That is why I cannot view sharia law as something that should exist not because it's 'Islamic' but because religion and religious rules/laws should be kept out of governments.

What if a majority wants them in?

Do you?

It doesn't change the fact that you said the following...



... and that you - by extension - won't lift a finger to deal with even the worst atrocities, as long as they don't affect Westerners...

So it doesn't really matter if you were talking about ISIS... or Boko Haram... or the Interahamwe... or the Khmer Rouge...

I asked first.