Should sharia law be banned from the West?
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
17 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
I voted yes in the poll, but with caveat. Each nation has a legal system. They're not all the same, but they are an intrinsic part of what makes up a sovereign nation. The laws of the land. Any elements injected into any system by outside sources needs to be looked at to determine where conflicts with the existing legal structure might occur. Some such conflicts could quite easily be criminal under the country's statutes.
Let's take a simplistic and obviously ridiculous look at a possible example. Suppose a group of people enter a country where polygamy is against the law, but this group practices polygamy. Should they be permitted to practice polygamy in the country to which they have immigrated? My answer to that would be, no. If that was the only element of their system that was in conflict, then that element should be looked upon as a criminal practice.
Sharia is complex. It has many elements which are in conflict with most western cultures, but it also has many that are not. I would not make the blanket statement that I would ban Sharia in its entirety, but I would advise those who practice or employ Sharia that if certain activities contrary to our law are engaged in, the parties involved will be treated as criminals under our law and there will be appropriate consequences.
Consider FGM (female genital mutilation): "Federal and state policy. As of January 2019, 28 states had passed legislation making FGM illegal. Several of these states passed legislation that made it illegal to perform FGM on anyone, while the federal law (the Female Genital Mutilation Act 1996) only protects those under 18." In spite of that fact that there is another form of genital mutilation that is legal (circumcision), the practice on females is now against the law in 28 states, and there is no reason to doubt that it will soon be so in all states and for all ages. The people who break those laws should not be able to use Sharia as protection.
It has nothing to do with the people as people. It has everything to do with established law in the lands they enter.
evidentialist
Level 8
Jan 19, 2019
1
if it is already illegal, the purpose of a further ban is...?
g
@genessa -- Didn't say anything about a further ban, did I? Those elements of Sharia that are contrary to existing law are criminal offenses and should be punished without any consideration given to where it came from.
@evidentialist yes, if those elements are illegal they're already banned, so if you want a ban, it would have to be a further ban. so yes, the poster did. if they're currently a criminal offense, they're already banned and already punished. so why do you need more of a ban than that?
g
@evidentialist Excellent point. Perhaps the real question should be "Does Sharia supersede secular law?" Devout followers of "the prophet" believe the affirmative.
@PBuck0145 -- I submit that it matters not what one believes when one enters the house of another. One may believe anything one wishes, but acting on those beliefs in opposition to the established norm of the host is not how one assimilates into another culture.
@evidentialist We are in agreement.
The xians are making ut real in US every day.
Al-Bundy_59
Level 6
Jan 18, 2019
0
Sharia holds the same status in the west as do church courts, which do exist still and have since the middle ages.
These religious "law" systems have only the power that people give them, if you do not accept their authority and do not recognise them they have no authority at all.
If in trying to exert authority they break the law of the land, they are liable to prosecution themselves.
A lot of clubs, institution and still some churches especially teh Mormons and the scientologists do have their own internal disciplinary systems even foorball clubs do, but no matter what they may CALL themselves they are not courts, they are not law making or enforcing bodies, they are people playing at authoritarianism.
The best thing to do is ignore them or report them to the actual law when they go to far.
You may as well try to ban your teacher for gving you detention.
LenHazell53
Level 9
Jan 18, 2019
0
why bother? there is no sharia law in the west. well... we have no islamic sharia law in the west, anyway. we do have christian sharia law, though it's not called that. there are still seven states in which it is illegal for atheists to run for elected office, and courts have incomprehensibly ruled in favor of discrimination based on religious principles -- not protecting religious freedom but failing to protect other freedoms being trampled in the name of religion. but theoretically we do already have separation of church and state here, and that means that theoretically we have no sharia law, and there is thus no need to ban it.
g
genessa
Level 8
Jan 18, 2019
0
@jchristian88 ah, so when you say sharia law, you don't mean sharia law. maybe you should look that up, eh? so you are actually just suggesting prosecuting people for privately practicing a religion you don't like. so would you like to be specific about what crime you think is being committed? because it sounds as if you're saying "this isn't a crime but i don't like it so let's ban it, e.g. make it a crime, so that we can then prosecute it as a crime." that doesn't work in civilized countries.
g
@jchristian88 i encourage you to look up "illegal." those things are already illegal, so what would you be banning that was not already banned? criticize all you like, but your call for things that are already illegal to be banned would be like calling to ban drunken driving, or burning down someone's house, or robbing a bank. those things are ALREADY BANNED, in the west as you say. so what are you banning that isn't already banned? you can't ban IDEAS. you can only bad actions, and how many damned times do i have to say those actions are already banned? what're you gonna do, also arrest people for thinking about stuff?
g
@jchristian88 mass protests have been known to happen for a variety of reasons, not always connected to reality. seriously, female circumcision or mutilating someone's hand is NOT illegal in britain? quelle surprise! i could've sworn they would be.
g
I get fed up with questions like this. If you live in the US, UK, Australia, France, Germany or any other western country then it is the laws of the countries that are valid. People who ask this question are just trying to spread misinformation and hatered as if this is something that is on the agenda.
Jolanta
Level 9
Jan 18, 2019
1
Whow. Not so
@Jolanta Islam is the champion hate-monger. Members of all other cultures must be converted, subjugated or executed.
[archive.li]
@PBuck0145 Have you ever red the Quran or have you ever sat down with a Muslim and had a chat to her or him? I bet that you haven't. If you were to read the bible and then read the Quran you would find out that there is an incredible difference in how violent Christianity is from Islam. Murder is forbidden in the Quran. The fact that some Muslims do kill has nothing to do with the religion but all to do with power and money.
- Whataboutism is not a valid debate stratagem.
- I have read the Qur'an and other Islamic "sacred" texts. Murder of devout Muslims is forbidden. Murder of Infidels (Jews, Christians, "Pantheists" ), apostates, "hypocrites", etc. is encouraged and even required.
- I have interacted with many followers of "the prophet". The ones I have dealt with appear to be, and probably are, tolerant, pleasant and sociable people. In other words, they are "cultural Muslims", who cherry-pick which tenets of the ideology they choose to follow. Islam would classify these as "hypocrites", who would need to repent or be punished when the Caliphate is established.
- The only objective of the ideology is its own propagation, by any means available, including violence, deception, migration and accelerated procreation. The well-being of its followers, or of humanity in general, is not a consideration.
- Fulfillment of that objective is facilitated by regressive leftist, social justice warriors, the "open borders", and "open societies" aspirations of the European Commission, and the United Nations General Assembly, the majority of whose members are Islamic or Islam sympathizers and wish to end Israel, the only functioning democracy in the Middle East.
If you wish to side with cultural "underdogs", take an objective look at world-wide persecution of Christians and Jews, including executions and destruction of places of worship.
@PBuck0145 I don't know where you got your information from but I have found out that fanatics no matter where from, have an inability to think outside their sphere of vision and with your attitude you seem to be one. Like on of those Christinas who for 600 years thought the Spanish inquisition was ok. Of course as you are ranting on about the so called regressive leftists, social justice warriors, the "open borders" etc, etc I can understand how you think. Feel kind of sorry for you, you don't seem to understand that there are fanatics everywhere but that may be because you are one yourself.
@Jolanta Let me say again: "Whataboutism is not a valid debate stratagem."
Thank you. I actually appreciate your condescending, misplaced sympathy. My sympathy is directed towards the human race in general.
Atheists and agnostics profess to be among the most intelligent, rational people. When a significant fraction of these people surrender to political correctness, denying the real present day dangers of imperialist Islam, then the likelihood that the spread of the ideology can be arrested and eventually reversed is greatly reduced. Also, the pervasive politically correct environment increases the difficulty for potential apostates to act upon their rational aspirations.
Anything that encroaches on the freedom of others should be controlled by law...unfortunately, that includes their right to live by Sharia Law, if they so choose. Then again, there are members within their society whose freedoms are stolen. So that controlling law needs to reach within their groups and offer freedom to those individuals. BUT do not try to make me, a freedom loving individual, subject to that ridiculous, evil way of life.
think-beyond
Level 7
Jan 18, 2019
1
Laws should be free of superstitious and religious bias.
SkotlandSkye
Level 8
Jan 18, 2019
2
This is a dumb question. The law is what the society decides. Unless it's an autocratic rule. In which case that's the fundamental problem, not what form it takes.
AtheistReader
Level 7
Jan 18, 2019
2
I love you Ken.
@jchristian88 Think before commenting. Oh, I am sorry. That must've been insulting.
@jchristian88 Once you make a post, it is in the "public domain". You have no right to control the resulting narrative. If you can't live with the responses to the post, you are free to delete the OP, which will make it extremely difficult for anybody to view the responses.
Ugh. Logic 101
Me: Did you eventually stop beating your wife?
You: What? That's a dumb question. It makes an unsubstantiated assumption.
Me: Just answer the question. It's yes or no question kiss.
No. Don't need someone telling me that agnosticsm or athiesm is banned. You don't tell me what to believe, and i don't tell what you to believe.
Now if you do something that is illegal - that is a different story. Christians are not exempt from deaths caused by bombing abortion clinics because of their beliefs.
UrsiMajor
Level 8
Jan 18, 2019
2
Laws do not tell you what to believe, no law can do that, laws tell you what you are legally allowed or not allowed to do.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.