Instead if a study to figure if it's being "misused", just ban it outright. Britain has a court system and it only needs one. There is zero benefit to allowing certain people to implement their own legal system and enforce it themselves.
It's probably essential to any formation of an opinion on Sharia law to know that, despite its name, it's not a legal system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus
Sharia law(s) should be banned across the planet.
Feel better? do you agree?
I don't feel better, and I disagree. I think the tribunal type things are questionable, but essentially all Muslims live under sharia law (including "modern" ones) and I've met many beautiful, strong, wonderful people who count themselves as Muslims and are as liberal as the average secular non-Muslim Canadian (and many who are more-so).
Just as most Christians don't take the backwards rules in the Old Testament to be binding, most western Muslims don't take the backwards rules of Sharia to be binding. Living your life under Sharia is living the good life, being virtuous and loving each other. Banning Sharia courts might be problematic, but banning Sharia goes against freedom of religion.
Honest question: how much do you know about the religion you hate? About Sharia? You constantly get major details wrong, show a total lack of understanding, and post pretty hateful stuff... but have you actually taken the time to learn about it? Do you talk to Muslim friends and ask them questions?
As someone who isn't religious and who's way of life isn't really hugely endorsed by any religion, I've always been happy to find that the majority of people from any religion I've encountered have been wonderful, kind, and open people (even if we disagree). How do you square your friends and brothers in your organisation going out and killing people because their Muslim? Or because they defend Muslims?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Maybe stop funding cuts to policing Theresa. This video is pretty damning.
Love no nonsense interviews like this where all diplomacy is thrown out the window and she gets called on her lies. Particularly leading up to an election and where the issue is at the forefront.
Quote:
After the Manchester Arena terror attack, Amber Rudd told the public: “We must not imply that this terrorist activity wouldn’t have taken place if there had been more policing … good counter-terrorism activity is because you have a close relationship between the policing and intelligence services.”
This kind of rhetoric may seem persuasive and eloquent but, as so often with politicians trying to avoid blame, it is untrue. It is untrue because it misses a key and huge fundamental point to the protection of our national security.
Police officers embedded in the community, there to help, there to listen, there to understand the community they serve. It is in the community where the best intelligence is learnt and gathered, from the people who notice a change in behaviour of their friends and neighbours, allowing early intervention and monitoring.
Theresa May’s cuts have removed these officers from the streets. The intelligence they brought in through local knowledge and community engagement has dried up and collapsed, and the local bobby known to all has gone, replaced by a reactive police “service” that is inadequate – as the press is always so quick to point out when mistakes are made and splashed all over their front pages.
“Cuts have consequences” – this was the tag line used by the Police Federation when the bones were being stripped from British policing. Now we see that this wasn’t “scaremongering”, as Theresa May, the then-Home Secretary told us. We are now seeing the very real consequences of these cuts – in the faces of the victims of this attack we see in our papers.
May told her audience at the time the police’s warnings “didn’t serve the public”. I ask now: has she served in the public’s best interest?
In my force alone, just to meet the service level agreements on officer numbers deployed to the street, shifts are being extended, rest days are being cancelled, and since the Manchester and London attacks more officers are required – officers who don’t really exist since the cuts. Many of my colleagues are working 18-plus days straight without any real rest to make sure the public are safe and protected.
It's probably essential to any formation of an opinion on Sharia law to know that, despite its name, it's not a legal system.
I don't feel better, and I disagree. I think the tribunal type things are questionable, but essentially all Muslims live under sharia law (including "modern" ones) and I've met many beautiful, strong, wonderful people who count themselves as Muslims and are as liberal as the average secular non-Muslim Canadian (and many who are more-so).
Just as most Christians don't take the backwards rules in the Old Testament to be binding, most western Muslims don't take the backwards rules of Sharia to be binding. Living your life under Sharia is living the good life, being virtuous and loving each other. Banning Sharia courts might be problematic, but banning Sharia goes against freedom of religion.
Honest question: how much do you know about the religion you hate? About Sharia? You constantly get major details wrong, show a total lack of understanding, and post pretty hateful stuff... but have you actually taken the time to learn about it? Do you talk to Muslim friends and ask them questions?
As someone who isn't religious and who's way of life isn't really hugely endorsed by any religion, I've always been happy to find that the majority of people from any religion I've encountered have been wonderful, kind, and open people (even if we disagree). How do you square your friends and brothers in your organisation going out and killing people because their Muslim? Or because they defend Muslims?
'He held her and watched her die in his arms': London attack victim from Castlegar, B.C.
Christine Archibald worked in a homeless shelter in Calgary, moved to Europe to be with fiancé
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
It's probably essential to any formation of an opinion on Sharia law to know that, despite its name, it's not a legal system.
I don't feel better, and I disagree. I think the tribunal type things are questionable, but essentially all Muslims live under sharia law (including "modern" ones) and I've met many beautiful, strong, wonderful people who count themselves as Muslims and are as liberal as the average secular non-Muslim Canadian (and many who are more-so).
Just as most Christians don't take the backwards rules in the Old Testament to be binding, most western Muslims don't take the backwards rules of Sharia to be binding. Living your life under Sharia is living the good life, being virtuous and loving each other. Banning Sharia courts might be problematic, but banning Sharia goes against freedom of religion.
Honest question: how much do you know about the religion you hate? About Sharia? You constantly get major details wrong, show a total lack of understanding, and post pretty hateful stuff... but have you actually taken the time to learn about it? Do you talk to Muslim friends and ask them questions?
As someone who isn't religious and who's way of life isn't really hugely endorsed by any religion, I've always been happy to find that the majority of people from any religion I've encountered have been wonderful, kind, and open people (even if we disagree). How do you square your friends and brothers in your organisation going out and killing people because their Muslim? Or because they defend Muslims?
I thought it would be important to post this resource which talks about the difference between Sharia law and Islamic Family Law, because I have an expectation that any discussion around either is going to spike discussions in a lot of different ways.
Absolutely your right Pepsi, there is a matter of will in following Sharia, while Islamic Law is final, and Islamic Law does borrow heavily from Sharia if I understand right especially in the value of woman in marriage and legally, and that's where a lot of us have a problem with it.
For those that have made the decision to fully implement Sharia the lack of woman's rights when it comes to property and divorce and the rights of the husband to physically discipline her and her inability to withhold sex is something that really can't be reconciled with modern society.
And I get the right to religious freedom, and I am a proponent of religious practices and freedoms to an extent. But I look at it as something like Sharia runs counter to Western law in terms of individual rights and that's why there really isn't a place in countries like Canada for Sharia based trials.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Living your life under Sharia is living the good life, being virtuous and loving each other.
This statement is such a complete obfuscation of reality and such a shameful abandonment of women other oppressed groups in so many countries who don't have the freedoms we should want for everyone.
No, you can't ban sharia courts. You can't ban the burka or the niqab; or at least, you shouldn't. Yes, most western Muslims don't take the more medieval elements of their religion seriously, or at least interpret them in a benign fashion. But this does not exonerate the religious tradition itself, as it is practiced in non-Western countries. Saying "living under Sharia is living the good life" is not just tacit endorsement of theocracy, but a total failure of compassion for the people who are harmed by it every single day.
I doubt Snuffleupagus has any Muslim friends, honestly. I'm positive he's never read the Quran or any Hadiths. I have, though, and I can understand exactly how conservative zealots, be they in Pakistan or Paris, come to the conclusion that horrifying behaviour from the dark ages is required of them by God. Adopting a 1400 year old set of prescriptions for how to live into a moderate interpretation that withstands import into a modern secular society takes serious intellectual effort, even more so in the context of religious communities, which by their nature attempt to suppress any changes or challenges to tradition.
We should recognize that and applaud those progressive Muslims who endorse that effort for other members of their communities. We can start by not obfuscating or ignoring their project, acting as if all you have to do is read the religious texts to discover that Sharia is some tolerant doctrine of love and virtue.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
This statement is such a complete obfuscation of reality and such a shameful abandonment of women other oppressed groups in so many countries who don't have the freedoms we should want for everyone. .
We should recognize that and applaud those progressive Muslims who endorse that effort for other members of their communities. We can start by not obfuscating or ignoring their project, acting as if all you have to do is read the religious texts to discover that Sharia is some tolerant doctrine of love and virtue.
That seems like a pretty big emotional leap. It sounds like you're talking about Islamic Family law interchangeably at certain points here.
Your plea to recognise and applaud progressive Muslims seems to be completely hollow or contradictory to your first paragraph. How do you square that plea with your condemnation of what many Muslims (and ALL progressive Muslims) believe Sharia to be? You are aware that there is not a single practicing Muslim that doesn't adhere to Sharia, correct? "Progressive" or otherwise, if you're Muslim, you adhere to Sharia in some form.
The path to peace isn't eliminating Islam. Christianity didn't find relative peace by eliminating it. The path is holding up the more liberal, virtuous interpretations and celebrating the progressives who preach it. Not calling those progressive interpretations (held by many, many western followers of Islam) "obfuscation of reality" and "shameful."
Shaming religious people who work hard to celebrate and promote liberal interpretations of their texts seems completely backwards.
EDIT: Maybe I can see you having misenterpretted my previous post as saying "Sharia is wonderful and cannot be negatively interpreted by horrible people" which might mean you think I'm actually stupid, but if so I'll clarify: to many Muslims the word over, especially prominent in Western countries, Sharia is "living the good life," a moral guide that celebrates living a positive and peaceful life. This is true, and is why claims like "Sharia is evil" and "We should ban Sharia" are ignorant drivel. Plenty of religious texts say some pretty insane things, so let's celebrate those that interpret the teaching in a modern liberal fashion and use religion for good, not throw out blanket bans and start shaming those people.
Last edited by PepsiFree; 06-04-2017 at 11:39 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Edit: Yes we should ban Sharia, it's trash Pepsi, those loving people living under Sharia would likely even more loving without that garbage in their lives.
Last edited by Snuffleupagus; 06-05-2017 at 02:23 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Snuffleupagus For This Useful Post:
Was fascism ban based on the ideas that constitute the fascist ideology or on the actions carried out by its followers? To the best of my knowledge, fascism is the only ideology/religion that is universally banned, so it makes me wonder whether I need to study Mein Kampf to support the ban of fascism or merely watching Holocaust documentary will do?
Freedom of religion. People have the right to subjugate themselves to all sorts of things, including religious rulings, as long as those are not in conflict with actual legal courts. In other words, as long as the court isn't ordering anyone to break laws, it's not that easy to crack down on them legally even if there is moral reasons to do so. Mostly there isn't.
Shariah "courts" is often a somewhat misleading term, at least in many western countries. It's not like it's an actual court, just people asking for guidance or arbitration from a spiritual leader, no more and no less. (Personally I find it a terrible idea, but then again I'm an atheist so what do I know.)
Voluntary courts in general are not that uncommon in the West. Any system where two sides agree to obey the rulings of a third party arbitrator is essentially a court. Sports has all sorts of courts which can pass judgments on things such as who can work where and how much money someone should get. Many Christian churches have some kind of an internal court system to pass judgment on their own staff.
I'm not saying that sharia courts can't be a highly problematic phenomenon, and I strongly agree that they should be examined and supervised. I'm just saying it's not a simple issue.
So it's basically like the Peoples Court... What you are witnessing is real. The participants arenotactors. They are actual litigants with a case pending in a California municipal court. Both parties have agreed to dismiss their court cases and have their disputes settled here, in our forum: The People's Court.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Was fascism ban based on the ideas that constitute the fascist ideology or on the actions carried out by its followers? To the best of my knowledge, fascism is the only ideology/religion that is universally banned, so it makes me wonder whether I need to study Mein Kampf to support the ban of fascism or merely watching Holocaust documentary will do?
This post is a bit funny, but also demonstrative of why it's important to know what you're talking about if you want to make a good point.
While you're trying to raise a reasonable question (how much do you need to know about something to ban it), your lack of understanding on the topic undermines what you're trying to say, as you're making a very significant factual mistake by confusing Nazism and fascism.
I don't think fascism is banned anywhere. Nazism is. There have been several fascist governments since the Nazis, and support of clearly fascist ideas is pretty common. (Although that depends a lot on how you categorize ideas, so let's not go into details there.)
Nazism is essentially a subcategory of fascism. #NotAllFascists start concentration camps
Freedom of religion. People have the right to subjugate themselves to all sorts of things, including religious rulings, as long as those are not in conflict with actual legal courts. In other words, as long as the court isn't ordering anyone to break laws, it's not that easy to crack down on them legally even if there is moral reasons to do so. Mostly there isn't.
Shariah "courts" is often a somewhat misleading term, at least in many western countries. It's not like it's an actual court, just people asking for guidance or arbitration from a spiritual leader, no more and no less. (Personally I find it a terrible idea, but then again I'm an atheist so what do I know.)
Voluntary courts in general are not that uncommon in the West. Any system where two sides agree to obey the rulings of a third party arbitrator is essentially a court. Sports has all sorts of courts which can pass judgments on things such as who can work where and how much money someone should get. Many Christian churches have some kind of an internal court system to pass judgment on their own staff.
I'm not saying that sharia courts can't be a highly problematic phenomenon, and I strongly agree that they should be examined and supervised. I'm just saying it's not a simple issue.
Sharia law is a distillation of rulings that purport to represent the divine diktat in all worldly affairs. It provides injunctions for the conduct of criminal, public and even international law. Marriage and divorce, the custody of children, alimony, sexual impropriety and much else come within its remit. Sharia courts claim authority over the private lives of individuals in a way that is contrary to tradition.
It's probably essential to any formation of an opinion on Sharia law to know that, despite its name, it's not a legal system.
I don't feel better, and I disagree. I think the tribunal type things are questionable, but essentially all Muslims live under sharia law (including "modern" ones) and I've met many beautiful, strong, wonderful people who count themselves as Muslims and are as liberal as the average secular non-Muslim Canadian (and many who are more-so).
Just as mostChristians don't take the backwards rules in the Old Testament to be binding, mostwestern Muslims don't take the backwards rules of Sharia to be binding. Living your life under Sharia is living the good life, being virtuous and loving each other. Banning Sharia courts might be problematic, but banning Sharia goes against freedom of religion.
Honest question: how much do you know about the religion you hate? About Sharia? You constantly get major details wrong, show a total lack of understanding, and post pretty hateful stuff... but have you actually taken the time to learn about it? Do you talk to Muslim friends and ask them questions?
As someone who isn't religious and who's way of life isn't really hugely endorsed by any religion, I've always been happy to find that the majority of people from any religion I've encountered have been wonderful, kind, and open people (even if we disagree). How do you square your friends and brothers in your organisation going out and killing people because their Muslim? Or because they defend Muslims?
The common words in both are backwards rules. They exist, tenets of both religions have a significant population that believe in them and they continue to preach and indoctrinate.
That seems like a pretty big emotional leap. It sounds like you're talking about Islamic Family law interchangeably at certain points here.
Your plea to recognise and applaud progressive Muslims seems to be completely hollow or contradictory to your first paragraph. How do you square that plea with your condemnation of what many Muslims (and ALL progressive Muslims) believe Sharia to be? You are aware that there is not a single practicing Muslim that doesn't adhere to Sharia, correct? "Progressive" or otherwise, if you're Muslim, you adhere to Sharia in some form.
The path to peace isn't eliminating Islam. Christianity didn't find relative peace by eliminating it. The path is holding up the more liberal, virtuous interpretations and celebrating the progressives who preach it. Not calling those progressive interpretations (held by many, many western followers of Islam) "obfuscation of reality" and "shameful."
Shaming religious people who work hard to celebrate and promote liberal interpretations of their texts seems completely backwards.
EDIT: Maybe I can see you having misenterpretted my previous post as saying "Sharia is wonderful and cannot be negatively interpreted by horrible people" which might mean you think I'm actually stupid, but if so I'll clarify: to many Muslims the word over, especially prominent in Western countries, Sharia is "living the good life," a moral guide that celebrates living a positive and peaceful life. This is true, and is why claims like "Sharia is evil" and "We should ban Sharia" are ignorant drivel. Plenty of religious texts say some pretty insane things, so let's celebrate those that interpret the teaching in a modern liberal fashion and use religion for good, not throw out blanket bans and start shaming those people.
As with the Bible, Muslims who cherry pick or as you suggest, "promote liberal interpretations", are just as bad. If a tome is supposedly written by a God or Godlike person the tome should leave no room for interpretation.
Sharia law is a distillation of rulings that purport to represent the divine diktat in all worldly affairs. It provides injunctions for the conduct of criminal, public and even international law. Marriage and divorce, the custody of children, alimony, sexual impropriety and much else come within its remit. Sharia courts claim authority over the private lives of individuals in a way that is contrary to tradition.
Some do, some don't.
The general problem with Islam currently is that there's a significant subsection of Muslims who support political Islamism, where religion becomes a cornerstone of legal and political systems. It is however clearly a subsection, especially in the west. (For one because many Muslims move to western countries to get away from political Islamism and religious fanatics in general.)
On another note, a quote from FB I found funny that's actually relevant to the OP:
Quote:
Theresa May says the UK hasn't done enough to prevent terrorism. That was literally her job as Home Secretary.
The general problem with Islam currently is that there's a significant subsection of Muslims who support political Islamism, where religion becomes a cornerstone of legal and political systems. It is however clearly a subsection, especially in the west. (For one because many Muslims move to western countries to get away from political Islamism and religious fanatics in general.)
On another note, a quote from FB I found funny that's actually relevant to the OP:
The bolded part is the problem, isn't it? If it is left to interpretation then it should be banned outright.
As with the Bible, Muslims who cherry pick or as you suggest, "promote liberal interpretations", are just as bad. If a tome is supposedly written by a God or Godlike person the tome should leave no room for interpretation.
Sure, and in absence of the abolition of freedom of religion and the essentially impossible elimination of every religion on earth, what option would you prefer?
A bunch of Christians and Muslims running around believing in medieval punishments?
Or a bunch of progressive Christians and Muslims running around believing that, considering their age, it's probably ok not to interpret the texts verbatim, and instead live your life off the positive guidance it can provide.
Calling option number 2 just as bad is stupid. It might still be worse than being a virtuous atheist, but outside of that it is pretty clearly a massive improvement over taking the texts and following them verbatim.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
