It's irrelevant. It doesn't give me any reason to tar all muslims with the same brush. And it's worth noting that there are many, many other muslim places besides the middle east. In my case SE Asia and S. Asia. I'm not here to argue Sharia law or that what's happened is right. But I don't then jump in and start blaming all of Islam for that... and start lumping all muslims into the same lot. That's patently absurd.
Some Judges Live On Another Planet
- Thread starter CYCPASAeJrulesPAWD2W
- Start date
marnefirstinfantry
Member
The problem is not Islam as a whole, but populations within Islam that are still using a 1500-year-old criminal code for modern criminal prosecutions. "Being a witch" is not a crime in Israel; they use a modern criminal code and a modern evidentiary code there. "Spilling your seed on the ground" is not a crime in Italy; they use a modern criminal code and a modern evidentiary code there. But in significant portions of the Muslim world, particularly more rural areas, a 1500-year-old criminal and evidentiary code is still being used to adjudicate crimes. And that's resulting in some serious injustice, particularly in rape cases.
tshnobodysfool
Member
I agree.
chris5_4_2
New member
From the BBC, regarding Pakistan's move in 2006 to quit using Sharia law in rape cases:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6153994.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6153994.stm
Again, that's not Sharia, point me to the passage in the Quran or Hadith where that is stated.
Any 'justice' system requiring the 4 victims rule has fundamentally misinterpreted the Quran.
The only contention I can find in mainstream Islam, is in the case of extramarital pregnancy. If a woman then claims she was raped, there is controversy over whether the pregnancy itself can be used as evidence of adultery. Imam Abu Hanifa says it absolutely is not and that the woman's word is law, Imam Malik ibn Anas says it can be and that there must be some evidence (physical or medical) of the rape - but neither suggests that the woman needs to produce witnesses.
There are major problems with sexual misconduct rules under Sharia law, but this isn't one of them.
Any 'justice' system requiring the 4 victims rule has fundamentally misinterpreted the Quran.
The only contention I can find in mainstream Islam, is in the case of extramarital pregnancy. If a woman then claims she was raped, there is controversy over whether the pregnancy itself can be used as evidence of adultery. Imam Abu Hanifa says it absolutely is not and that the woman's word is law, Imam Malik ibn Anas says it can be and that there must be some evidence (physical or medical) of the rape - but neither suggests that the woman needs to produce witnesses.
There are major problems with sexual misconduct rules under Sharia law, but this isn't one of them.
I think we need to draw a distinction between (1) what you think a religious institution should be, and (2) acts carried out by religious leadership in the name of that religion.
Analogy: most modern Catholics would say that the Inquisition was "extremely un-Christian" and that "that's not what Catholicism is about." And those are legitimate opinions for them to hold. But that doesn't change the fact that the Inquisition was carried out by the Catholic Church in the name of Catholicism.
From a personal perspective, you're certainly entitled to believe that this law that was called "Sharia" in Pakistan and is still called "Sharia" in many Muslim-majority countries was not "real Islam," but instead was "a perversion of Islam" or something like that. But to call another forum member a liar for simply stating that in many Muslim-majority countries, this "Sharia" (which you would consider false Sharia or a perversion of Sharia) is enforced as Sharia law...that's pretty unfair to that other forum user.
I'm not offering any opinion as to whether the "four witnesses to rape" rule is an accurate or inaccurate reflection of the Qur'an and Hadith. What I am saying--what is uncontestable fact--is that many courts in Muslim-majority countries that hold themselves out as "Sharia courts" enforce the "four witnesses to rape" rule claiming that it is part of Sharia law. I don't know what Sharia should be, but for people living under the jurisdiction of these courts, that's what Sharia is as a practical matter.
Analogy: most modern Catholics would say that the Inquisition was "extremely un-Christian" and that "that's not what Catholicism is about." And those are legitimate opinions for them to hold. But that doesn't change the fact that the Inquisition was carried out by the Catholic Church in the name of Catholicism.
From a personal perspective, you're certainly entitled to believe that this law that was called "Sharia" in Pakistan and is still called "Sharia" in many Muslim-majority countries was not "real Islam," but instead was "a perversion of Islam" or something like that. But to call another forum member a liar for simply stating that in many Muslim-majority countries, this "Sharia" (which you would consider false Sharia or a perversion of Sharia) is enforced as Sharia law...that's pretty unfair to that other forum user.
I'm not offering any opinion as to whether the "four witnesses to rape" rule is an accurate or inaccurate reflection of the Qur'an and Hadith. What I am saying--what is uncontestable fact--is that many courts in Muslim-majority countries that hold themselves out as "Sharia courts" enforce the "four witnesses to rape" rule claiming that it is part of Sharia law. I don't know what Sharia should be, but for people living under the jurisdiction of these courts, that's what Sharia is as a practical matter.
PreTTyMaMMa
New member
When you say things like "The problem with rape in Sharia law is that the woman would have to produce four witnesses to testify that she had not sinned." You are assigning that belief to the entire religion and by proxy, those people who are part of that religion. It is a lie, just as it would be a lie to suggest that the molestation of altar boys by members of the clergy is part of the Catholic religion, rather than a series of atrocities committed by individuals.
ultrasuperman1001
New member
If that is directed at me then it really is beyond stupid! Let's take it step by step:
(1) I'm not a 'lefty'. Calling everone who doesn't say what YOU think they 'ought' to say a 'lefty' makes you look like a 'moron'.
(2) No one has defended anything, everyone has condemned this unjust ruling, including me. If you can't keep up with the thread then try reading more slowly and carefully. And don't post until you have actually grasped what people are talking about, then you'll save yourself from looking gormless.
(3) All the Muslims I know treat me with respect, and I know a lot of Muslims. I don't see them as being better or worse than any other type of people. But you probably don't know a single one, otherwise you wouldn't make such childishly stupid generalisations.
(1) I'm not a 'lefty'. Calling everone who doesn't say what YOU think they 'ought' to say a 'lefty' makes you look like a 'moron'.
(2) No one has defended anything, everyone has condemned this unjust ruling, including me. If you can't keep up with the thread then try reading more slowly and carefully. And don't post until you have actually grasped what people are talking about, then you'll save yourself from looking gormless.
(3) All the Muslims I know treat me with respect, and I know a lot of Muslims. I don't see them as being better or worse than any other type of people. But you probably don't know a single one, otherwise you wouldn't make such childishly stupid generalisations.
The reason molestation is so rampant among Catholic clergy is because the leadership of the Catholic Church has protected the molesters. Whether or not child abuse is within the written tenets of Catholicism, the Catholic establishment is responsible for it, and people have a right to be angry with the Catholic Church.
As much as I just disagreed with Putrid (mostly because he's acting like a backward redneck), Miltov has a point. We can say this has nothing to do with Islam, but whether or not it's written in the Koran, this is how Islam manifests itself in a large portion of the world, and it is Islamic authorities advocating this in the name of Islam.
As much as I just disagreed with Putrid (mostly because he's acting like a backward redneck), Miltov has a point. We can say this has nothing to do with Islam, but whether or not it's written in the Koran, this is how Islam manifests itself in a large portion of the world, and it is Islamic authorities advocating this in the name of Islam.
I don't know where that quote came from, but it's not my words. I've been very clear that I'm attacking a legal code based upon how it's historically been instituted. I've never said that it's interpreted that way because of a religion. But it has historically been interpreted that way. Please point me at countries where (1) so-called "Sharia courts" are still used to prosecute rape, and (2) a rape victim does not need witnesses to prove that she was raped, but instead, the alleged rapist must prove her a liar or be guilty of both rape and slander. If this is widespread interpretation of Sharia law as implemented by self-declared Sharia courts trying rape cases, I'm not aware of it and would like to know more.
Here are two more examples of the implementation of Sharia law that I describe, where rape victims are victimized a second time by being found guilty of adultery. So now we've got representative cases of the interpretation of "Sharia law" I described from Morocco, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and Bangladesh. Which are the countries that enforce Sharia evidentiary and criminal law in the manner you describe?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7708169.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15991641
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12344959
Here are two more examples of the implementation of Sharia law that I describe, where rape victims are victimized a second time by being found guilty of adultery. So now we've got representative cases of the interpretation of "Sharia law" I described from Morocco, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and Bangladesh. Which are the countries that enforce Sharia evidentiary and criminal law in the manner you describe?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7708169.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15991641
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12344959
angeleyezxx
New member
For your information I first went into a Muslim house in 1969.The lad was a school friend and had recently come to the UK from the Gujarat.Having lived in Leicester for most of my life and practiced martial arts for decades its would be highly unlikely that I had not come into contact with Muslims.Same with Hindus and Sikhs,like Muslims they were part of the clubs I have trained in.I also visit a lot of houses and have actually discussed the 7/7 bombings in Muslim homes.Like you say,they are no different to other people,some are likeable and others are not quite as pleasant.Muslims do tend to be polite but as one told me,if he owed two people money,a Muslim and a non Muslim, he would pay the Muslim first as he would regard him as a brother.
The "leftie" comments were aimed at 99.9% of people who mention the Sharia don't know what it is comment.This is the usual argument thrown around by left wingers.Anyone with half a brain knows that the Sharia is far more than just a legal system,its a way of life that Muslims are obliged to abide by.it has some good points but other parts of it are not compatible with 21st century Western democracies.
OwlMatt wrote
Sayyid Qutb said Islam is a blending of Christianity and Communism.Such a concoction can hardly be desribed as a faith,at least not in terms of spiritual development,hence the reason for the quotation marks.In theory Islam should be a perfect way for mankind but like Communism it falls far short when it faces reality.This is mainly down to greed and man's craving for power.
The "leftie" comments were aimed at 99.9% of people who mention the Sharia don't know what it is comment.This is the usual argument thrown around by left wingers.Anyone with half a brain knows that the Sharia is far more than just a legal system,its a way of life that Muslims are obliged to abide by.it has some good points but other parts of it are not compatible with 21st century Western democracies.
OwlMatt wrote
Sayyid Qutb said Islam is a blending of Christianity and Communism.Such a concoction can hardly be desribed as a faith,at least not in terms of spiritual development,hence the reason for the quotation marks.In theory Islam should be a perfect way for mankind but like Communism it falls far short when it faces reality.This is mainly down to greed and man's craving for power.
davidjriley98
New member
Edit: never mind. I don't want to get deeper into this.
I have a hard time accepting you as an authority on whether or not a particular religion reaches acceptable levels of "spiritual development" to be properly called a faith, especially when you base your argument on a quote by a groundbreaker like Qutb, who was not during his life and is not now representative of the Muslim mainstream or majority.
I'd also like to see some evidence that Muslims who do not live in Sharia law countries are "obliged to live by" Sharia law.
I'd also like to see some evidence that Muslims who do not live in Sharia law countries are "obliged to live by" Sharia law.
CorbinCrenshaw
Member
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-big-question-how-do-britains-sharia-courts-work-and-are-they-a-good-thing-1724486.html
Most of these courts deal with divorce and other civil matters but some incidents which in a British court would have attracted a prison sentence have been dealt with in Sharia courts.
If you doubt what I am saying I suggest you read the blog of Maryam Namazie.The forum rules don't allow linking so Google her name and you will find her blog.She is an authority on the subject and it was only after I spoke to her that I realised how big the problem really is.Women are not obliged to use these courts but if they refuse they are usually ostracised by their community.If this happens it then comes back to the problem of family honor.
Qutb was educated in America and was exposed to another way of life That was the main reason I quoted him.The Muslim brotherhood are very popular in Egypt and should make significant gains so I wouldn't dismiss them as a minority party.
Most of these courts deal with divorce and other civil matters but some incidents which in a British court would have attracted a prison sentence have been dealt with in Sharia courts.
If you doubt what I am saying I suggest you read the blog of Maryam Namazie.The forum rules don't allow linking so Google her name and you will find her blog.She is an authority on the subject and it was only after I spoke to her that I realised how big the problem really is.Women are not obliged to use these courts but if they refuse they are usually ostracised by their community.If this happens it then comes back to the problem of family honor.
Qutb was educated in America and was exposed to another way of life That was the main reason I quoted him.The Muslim brotherhood are very popular in Egypt and should make significant gains so I wouldn't dismiss them as a minority party.
First off - The following of Christianity and Judaism has evolved and such that we have a number of very accepting and really decent "casual" religious people. Many people of these faiths fall under this "casual" banner and are quite liberal. They don't follow the crazy rules set out in Leviticus and some nutty stuff in the bible and are really quite liberal.
Islam however is significantly younger than these religions and many of the countries that are coming into the modern world are a majority islamic and still have ways to go before they reach the development of the western world (which is largely christian dominated). They still have yet to reach development indices, clean water, literacy and housing and other indices, some of which are things like equality, yet there are many countries of dominated by other faiths that have yet to reach this also.
I doubt Islam is the cause of their lack of development before anyone brings that up.
As time goes on, these countries will catch up and abandon primitive law codes (sharia law) like other major religions have (hey check out hinduism, it took them a while to abandon burning widows and rural india still has a high rate of female infanticide and they still follow the laws of Manu which are just as bad as Sharia).
I believe Islam will slowly become at a majority more liberal with certain ideas, things just take time.
I have friends i met in the Aceh province of Indonesia (The Aceh province has the highest proportion of Muslims in the country with regional levels of Sharia law), yet many of the daughters and sisters have been sent to university (in jakarta and major cities) in place of sons. Doesn't sound like oppression to me.
If that isn't development i don't know what is.
Do people of any religion or non-religion have any respect for each other?
Probably not, otherwise you wouldn't have equated the entire Islamic faith and population with Nazis.
Well done sir, you have just won "teh internetz"
Islam however is significantly younger than these religions and many of the countries that are coming into the modern world are a majority islamic and still have ways to go before they reach the development of the western world (which is largely christian dominated). They still have yet to reach development indices, clean water, literacy and housing and other indices, some of which are things like equality, yet there are many countries of dominated by other faiths that have yet to reach this also.
I doubt Islam is the cause of their lack of development before anyone brings that up.
As time goes on, these countries will catch up and abandon primitive law codes (sharia law) like other major religions have (hey check out hinduism, it took them a while to abandon burning widows and rural india still has a high rate of female infanticide and they still follow the laws of Manu which are just as bad as Sharia).
I believe Islam will slowly become at a majority more liberal with certain ideas, things just take time.
I have friends i met in the Aceh province of Indonesia (The Aceh province has the highest proportion of Muslims in the country with regional levels of Sharia law), yet many of the daughters and sisters have been sent to university (in jakarta and major cities) in place of sons. Doesn't sound like oppression to me.
If that isn't development i don't know what is.
Do people of any religion or non-religion have any respect for each other?
Probably not, otherwise you wouldn't have equated the entire Islamic faith and population with Nazis.
Well done sir, you have just won "teh internetz"
Poolmanjim
New member
You contradict yourself to the point where what you say become completely meaningless. But if your opinion of Muslims not respecting non-Muslims really is all down to what ONE chap said to you then once again you have won the Stupid Prize.
That is based simply on my own personal experience. The percentage may not be statistically accurate, but it makes the point.
I'll take your word for that, because I haven't seen anyone else make the point before. I think most people think they know what Sharia is based on the way that it is represented by the media, so they get the mistaken idea that there is a single legal code called 'Sharia Law'.
Again, you talk as though there was one thing called 'Sharia Law'. I don't think you understand the concept clearly. There can be many interpretations of what Sharia should be. The version which exists in Saudi Arabia is probably the one most often cited as an example of how medieval and oppressive 'it' is, but it would be seen the same way by millions of Muslims who live under more enlightened systems.
That is based simply on my own personal experience. The percentage may not be statistically accurate, but it makes the point.
I'll take your word for that, because I haven't seen anyone else make the point before. I think most people think they know what Sharia is based on the way that it is represented by the media, so they get the mistaken idea that there is a single legal code called 'Sharia Law'.
Again, you talk as though there was one thing called 'Sharia Law'. I don't think you understand the concept clearly. There can be many interpretations of what Sharia should be. The version which exists in Saudi Arabia is probably the one most often cited as an example of how medieval and oppressive 'it' is, but it would be seen the same way by millions of Muslims who live under more enlightened systems.
Its becoming quite clear that you have no understanding of Islam and what it means to be a Muslim.
....and just what is that experience?
You need to get out more.
I think I made it quite clear that I don't agree with that definition.
The strain of Islam in Saudi is called Wahhabism and it was created around a hundred and fifty years ago.It probably is the real manifesation of the Sharia as it follows the Qur'an as closely as possible.
Countries which you desribe as enlightened such as Iraq and Iran when it was governed by the Shah were run by self serving despots propped up by the west.Even Saddam introduced certain elements of the Sharia when it suited his agenda and he usually paid lip service to Islam.I would suggest speaking to Muslims in the UK and see how many would like the Sharia to be implemented here.One Muslim lad I know works in the tax office and is very reasonable but even he would like to see burglars hands cut off and capital punishment introduced for a series of offences.I don't disagree with a lot of what he says and would welcome the death sentence for serious drug trafficking but I am sure it wouldn't go down well with those of a more Liberal disposition.
This is my final post on this matter as its becoming almost as pointless as the endless chi threads that find their way onto this forum.
....and just what is that experience?
You need to get out more.
I think I made it quite clear that I don't agree with that definition.
The strain of Islam in Saudi is called Wahhabism and it was created around a hundred and fifty years ago.It probably is the real manifesation of the Sharia as it follows the Qur'an as closely as possible.
Countries which you desribe as enlightened such as Iraq and Iran when it was governed by the Shah were run by self serving despots propped up by the west.Even Saddam introduced certain elements of the Sharia when it suited his agenda and he usually paid lip service to Islam.I would suggest speaking to Muslims in the UK and see how many would like the Sharia to be implemented here.One Muslim lad I know works in the tax office and is very reasonable but even he would like to see burglars hands cut off and capital punishment introduced for a series of offences.I don't disagree with a lot of what he says and would welcome the death sentence for serious drug trafficking but I am sure it wouldn't go down well with those of a more Liberal disposition.
This is my final post on this matter as its becoming almost as pointless as the endless chi threads that find their way onto this forum.
So if I get this right, the new law says that the defendent (the guy) would need 4 people to say he DIDN'T do it. So how difficult is that going to be in a overwhelmingly male dominated society.
It reminds me very much of the KKK dominance of the deep south in the mid 20th century America. A black person goes to the police with a complaint, and the white guy gets 10 of his buddies to back his alibi.
It reminds me very much of the KKK dominance of the deep south in the mid 20th century America. A black person goes to the police with a complaint, and the white guy gets 10 of his buddies to back his alibi.
Whereas you have? Your posts would suggest otherwise.
Talking to people. And endless circular discussions on MAP, of course.
You need to grow up, if that is the level of your arguments.
Fair enough. You are perfectly entitled to be wrong!
That would only be corrrect from a Wahabi point of view. Some forms of Sharia follow not just the Qu'ran and the Hadith but also Fiqh. No one human authority has the right to dictate what constitutes the 'true' Sharia, since Sharia is the will of God. The Wahabis think they are right, but the majority of Muslims think that the Wahabis are wahankers.
I didn't mention them. Once again you are pretending that I have said things which I haven't.
So what? Can't see what relevance this has to anything.
Once again, there can be many forms of Sharia law. If people want to replace the English legal system with some form of Sharia law then they entitled to wish for it, but it won't happen, because it is exceedingly unlikely that we will ever have a Muslim majority in this country. The only exception is some kind of Sharia court for dealing with family law cases between Muslims who consent to be vound by the court's judgement. This will probably happen in due course.
Bye bye then. Maybe the grown ups can go back to having a sensible discussion again now you've gone.
Talking to people. And endless circular discussions on MAP, of course.
You need to grow up, if that is the level of your arguments.
Fair enough. You are perfectly entitled to be wrong!
That would only be corrrect from a Wahabi point of view. Some forms of Sharia follow not just the Qu'ran and the Hadith but also Fiqh. No one human authority has the right to dictate what constitutes the 'true' Sharia, since Sharia is the will of God. The Wahabis think they are right, but the majority of Muslims think that the Wahabis are wahankers.
I didn't mention them. Once again you are pretending that I have said things which I haven't.
So what? Can't see what relevance this has to anything.
Once again, there can be many forms of Sharia law. If people want to replace the English legal system with some form of Sharia law then they entitled to wish for it, but it won't happen, because it is exceedingly unlikely that we will ever have a Muslim majority in this country. The only exception is some kind of Sharia court for dealing with family law cases between Muslims who consent to be vound by the court's judgement. This will probably happen in due course.
Bye bye then. Maybe the grown ups can go back to having a sensible discussion again now you've gone.