• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Saudi Arabia sentences woman convicted of adultery to death by stoning

Status
Not open for further replies.

ElTorro

I wanted to dominate the living room. Then I took an ESRAM in the knee.
I mean I wouldn't use it or want anyone in my family to use the optional system but the sheer immense positive potential of something like this is just freaking obvious.

I assume that the potential you mean is to have an intermediary step between insane theocratic laws and secular laws. But this intermediary step is still theocratic and thus not immune to the main criticism of theocratic law like Sharia: that laws are based on "holy" doctrines, which basically means nothing more than scripture that is tabooed from direct and objective criticism and requires mind-bending tricks to evade the barbarism, if it can be evaded at all. Such an approach is fundamentally not compatible with western secular values, no matter how much you interpret the barbarism found in the doctrines into irrelevance with exegetic mind gymnastics. Even without any obvious barbarism in the underlying doctrine, it would still be wrong.

So while you definitely and obviously can have theocratic laws that are less bad than others, none of them can be "good". Yes, they are all inherently "BAD".
 

mAcOdIn

Member
I'm still confused on the bolded. What version of Sharia law is this? And you are saying its western society that prevents better versions from being implemented??
I believe he's talking about a hypothetical situation where two Muslim parties could defer to an as of yet non-existent western oriented version of Sharia arbitration instead of deferring to the civil courts. Basically, he's saying if the west allowed Sharia to be used by Muslim parties as arbitration in domestic disputes that that form of Sharia would have to bend to be compliant with Western Laws and then, perhaps, that nicer, more western version of Sharia might get adopted elsewhere either as a form of voluntary arbitration in secular governments or perhaps replacing the stricter Sharia in theocracies. Remember, Arbitration does currently exist in the western world and is used so the concept isn't that radical.

I'll say this:
1) I'm not opposed to third party arbitration in non-criminal cases, however I think people'd need to be very vigilant as it's not entirely uncommon for businesses to try and require you to use arbitration as opposed to civil action to resolve disputes and just as much as I hate that practice I'd really hate someone not religious to be forced to use a religious arbitration system by an employer or an overbearing family. In business matters it's pretty much always used to limit an employee's rights so I'm not a fan, but I guess if we can allow business arbitration we can allow religious, though frankly I'd prefer not having either.

2) I don't see why this would even be called Sharia at that point. If the current form of Sharia law would need to change to fit western culture and be an acceptable legal system, whether as the primary legal system or as a voluntary third party arbitration used only when agreed upon by the involved parties isn't that already saying that Sharia is in fact a shit legal system? And would a new one so radically different warrant the same name?

At that point we're creating something totally different, slapping Sharia on it and saying "see it doesn't have to be so bad," it makes no sense to me.
 
Saying the extreme interpretations of the legal system and the book itself is an aberration in the wider, classical Islamic history is not hand-waving. If your contention is that we do no acknowledge that extreme interpretations exist, then you got a point. But that's not the case. Again if you dont want to listen to "moderate" view of Islam then you're not really here to discuss anything. Just be on your way and cheer Bill Mahr's videos. No one is stopping you, really.

Who said I wasn't listening? I said posts like the one I quoted push me to his direction. If you're not here to dissuade people from veering that way, then what the fuck are you doing?
 
Who said I wasn't listening? I said posts like the one I quoted push me to his direction. If you're not here to dissuade people from veering that way, then what the fuck are you doing?
I'm doing my part to shed light on the matter as much as I could. I didn't come here starting posts with "LOL".
 

Guy.brush

Member
I assume that the potential you mean is to have an intermediary step between insane theocratic laws and secular laws. But this intermediary step is still theocratic and thus not immune to the main criticism of theocratic law like Sharia: that laws are based on "holy" doctrines, which basically means nothing more than scripture that is tabooed from direct and objective criticism and requires mind-bending tricks to evade the barbarism, if it can be evaded at all. Such an approach is fundamentally not compatible with western secular values, no matter how much you interpret the barbarism found in the doctrines into irrelevance with exegetic mind gymnastics. Even without any obvious barbarism in the underlying doctrine, it would still be wrong.

So while you definitely and obviously can have theocratic laws that are less bad than others, none of them can be "good". Yes, they are all inherently "BAD".

Amen.
 

Azih

Member
You've done no such thing.

Laws of the land should be secular. I can't stand when Christians try and legislate their morality either.
Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms are not incompatible with the American constitution or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They are in fact encouraged to take the burden off of the regular legal system.

Future: Here is a summary of what happened in Ontario, Canada.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/blog/2008/feb/08/sharialawincanadaalmost

The ugly, and obviously Islamophobic, part to this was that Christian and Jewish ADRs were running with no problems and they had to get turfed too by the fairly mindless outcry against an Islamic version of the exact same damn thing. And the Ontario court system stays bogged down with a backlog *shrug*

As an interested bystander when that whole thing was happening at the start I was all like "Hah, let's see how those guys resolve the problematic Hadith with Canadian standards" and then a few months later I was :( when Fenderputty types shouted it down before it even had a chance to be scrutinized. It doesn't affect me personally as I wouldn't use that (optional) system but it was definitely a squandered opportunity to get an approach to 'Sharia' that included quite a lot of contemporary Western rigour. (Edit: And is compatible with the Western secular system)

And I never pretended that the current understandings of Islam are perfect. You guys are reading thing that I'm not typing. I'm pointing out that evolution of current Islamic thought gets stifled by people with knee jerk reactions.
 
I'm doing my part to shed light on the matter as much as I could. I didn't come here starting posts with "LOL".

Maybe you could shed light on why implying islamic law could have a place in western society isn't LOL worthy?

I assume that the potential you mean is to have an intermediary step between insane theocratic laws and secular laws. But this intermediary step is still theocratic and thus not immune to the main criticism of theocratic law like Sharia: that laws are based on "holy" doctrines, which basically means nothing more than scripture that is tabooed from direct and objective criticism and requires mind-bending tricks to evade the barbarism, if it can be evaded at all. Such an approach is fundamentally not compatible with western secular values, no matter how much you interpret the barbarism found in the doctrines into irrelevance with exegetic mind gymnastics. Even without any obvious barbarism in the underlying doctrine, it would still be wrong.

So while you definitely and obviously can have theocratic laws that are less bad than others, none of them can be "good". Yes, they are all inherently "BAD".

Basically.
 

nynt9

Member
I believe he's talking about a hypothetical situation where two Muslim parties could defer to an as of yet non-existent western oriented version of Sharia arbitration instead of deferring to the civil courts. Basically, he's saying if the west allowed Sharia to be used by Muslim parties as arbitration in domestic disputes that that form of Sharia would have to bend to be compliant with Western Laws and then, perhaps, that nicer, more western version of Sharia might get adopted elsewhere either as a form of voluntary arbitration in secular governments or perhaps replacing the stricter Sharia in theocracies. Remember, Arbitration does currently exist in the western world and is used so the concept isn't that radical.

I'll say this:
1) I'm not opposed to third party arbitration in non-criminal cases, however I think people'd need to be very vigilant as it's not entirely uncommon for businesses to try and require you to use arbitration as opposed to civil action to resolve disputes and just as much as I hate that practice I'd really hate someone not religious to be forced to use a religious arbitration system by an employer or an overbearing family. In business matters it's pretty much always used to limit an employee's rights so I'm not a fan, but I guess if we can allow business arbitration we can allow religious, though frankly I'd prefer not having either.

2) I don't see why this would even be called Sharia at that point. If the current form of Sharia law would need to change to fit western culture and be an acceptable legal system, whether as the primary legal system or as a voluntary third party arbitration used only when agreed upon by the involved parties isn't that already saying that Sharia is in fact a shit legal system? And would a new one so radically different warrant the same name?

At that point we're creating something totally different, slapping Sharia on it and saying "see it doesn't have to be so bad," it makes no sense to me.

Also, to make this legal system work for real you would have to convince people who want Sharia that this neo-sharia is better and not actually heretical, which would be rather difficult.
 

ElTorro

I wanted to dominate the living room. Then I took an ESRAM in the knee.
Another major problem with theocratic law systems is that they lift the legal-philosophical debate away from the fundamental principles on which laws should be based to how a fixed and indisputable fundament should be interpreted. Contrary to constitutions, holy scriptures cannot be changed and adapted to changing times and situations.

Moreover, and perhaps more critically, the acknowledgement of that theocratic fundament opens the doors for religious conservatives likes ISIS: once you have acknowledged that is ok to base laws on holy scripture, how can you then deny groups like ISIS the legitimacy of their interpretation, especially when their interpretation is more direct and literal than yours? This is a particular problem in Islam where no central authority exists to separate orthodoxy from heresy.

By accepting any form of theocracy law system as legitimate, you directly legitimize the fundament on which insane theocratic law systems are based and delegitimize any substantial criticism you might pose against them, since anything anyone can really do is to chose one of many arbitrarily acceptable interpretations.
 

Azih

Member
The crazy thing in this little tanget to the thread is that it started with me AGREEING that Sharia Law as practiced in Saudi Arabia is a medieval abhorrence that has no place anywhere in the 21st century.

The dispute seems to be that I'm pointing out that it's kind of absurd to generalize that ALL VERSIONS OF SHARIA THAT HAVE EVER OR COULD EVER POTENTIALLY POSSIBLY EVER EXIST.

ElTorro: The American and Canadian legal systems obviously don't agree with you. As long as an ADR doesn't contradict the standard law of the land they are fine. And that's the key. What could have happened in Ontario was that the people who wanted to create a Sharia based ADR would have had to have it not contradict Canadian Law. Is that possible? It absolutely is.

Sharia is man made law and has been different everywhere and at every time it has been applied.
 

injurai

Banned
There is already Islamic Law in western society. There is Judaic Law there too.

I'm actually curious what you mean by this? Just Islamic and Judaic nations that are modernized and part of the multi-national market economy? Like Turkey and Israel?

Or do you mean communities within nations of a predominant Christian ethno-heritage.

Because if it's the later, then what your describing is more of a pluralistic form of law that merely includes aspects of an Islamic derived law, making it beholden to the greater law of the land.
 
How else do you think Muslim communities living in non-Muslim countries decide on inheritance, divorce and marriage issues? That's Shariah right there. They are living by it and adheting to it's stipulations. It's actually the most significant part of Shariah.

Or did you think Shariah only meant hadd punishments?
 

Future

Member
Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms are not incompatible with the American constitution or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They are in fact encouraged to take the burden off of the regular legal system.

Future: Here is a summary of what happened in Ontario, Canada.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/blog/2008/feb/08/sharialawincanadaalmost

The ugly, and obviously Islamophobic, part to this was that Christian and Jewish ADRs were running with no problems and they had to get turfed too by the fairly mindless outcry against an Islamic version of the exact same damn thing. And the Ontario court system stays bogged down with a backlog *shrug*
.

In that article you mentioned, some Muslim people were against it however, fearing that the sharia law implemented would be the version seen in Muslim countries that oppress women and dissent. Why do you think that a new sharia law could have been formed that wouldn't have these traits? If the Canadian courts oversaw it to ensure rights were not violated, then it wouldn't really be sharia law and you'd get protests over that

Also, to make this legal system work for real you would have to convince people who want Sharia that this neo-sharia is better and not actually heretical, which would be rather difficult.

Exactly. I mean it sounds like you are trying to preserve dignity to sharia law, when every version ever implemented oppresses people? I feel it would be more productive to simply dismiss sharia law for ever being valid, and use another definition to apply laws through Islam that do not involve oppression
 

Azih

Member
In that article you mentioned, some Muslim people were against it however, fearing that the sharia law implemented would be the version seen in Muslim countries that oppress women and dissent. Why do you think that a new sharia law could have been formed that wouldn't have these traits? If the Canadian courts oversaw it to ensure rights were not violated, then it wouldn't really be sharia law and you'd get protests over that
The proposed system would have been supervised by Canadian courts and subject to Canadian law. It wouldn't have been allowed without it. Which is why Canadian legal experts thought the protests were pretty ridiculous.

The assumption you have that 'Sharia' cannot be created that would be compatible with Canadian law doesn't hold. It would have *had* to have been otherwise it wouldn't have been allowed. It remains a complete wasted opportunity.
 
How else do you think Muslim communities living in non-Muslim countries decide on inheritance, divorce and marriage issues? That's Shariah right there. They are living by it and adheting to it's stipulations. It's actually the most significant part of Shariah.

Or did you think Shariah only meant hadd punishments?

Are they avoiding and ignoring current laws when they do this? If so, not only do I think it's wrong, but I thought the Islamic religion did as well?

No I don't think Shariah is bad punishments only.
 
I'm actually curious what you mean by this? Just Islamic and Judaic nations that are modernized and part of the multi-national market economy? Like Turkey and Israel?

Or do you mean communities within nations of a predominant Christian ethno-heritage.

Because if it's the later, then what your describing is more of a pluralistic form of law that merely includes aspects of an Islamic derived law, making it beholden to the greater law of the land.
Shariah is not a "Book of Law". Hell it doesn't even exist as a codex, let alone a book. It is various conclusions reached by Islamic Jurists. You can still live in US and practice Shariah. All the Muslims do, is my point. There are Shariah Boards and Shariah Compliance certifications in US. So yeah, it exists in the west.
 

nynt9

Member
The proposed system would have been supervised by Canadian courts and subject to Canadian law. It wouldn't have been allowed without it. The assumption you have that 'Sharia' cannot be created that would be compatible with Canadian law doesn't hold. It would have *had* to have been otherwise it wouldn't have been allowed. It remains a complete wasted opportunity.

Wouldn't this be a discriminatory practice, allowing a different set of laws to a group of people based on their religion? It also fundamentally undermines the concept of secularity.
 
Saying the extreme interpretations of the legal system and the book itself is an aberration in the wider, classical Islamic history is not hand-waving. If your contention is that we do no acknowledge that extreme interpretations exist, then you got a point. But that's not the case. Again if you dont want to listen to "moderate" view of Islam then you're not really here to discuss anything. Just be on your way and cheer Bill Mahr's videos. No one is stopping you, really.

How about not having sharia law in secular modern society?
 

Kinitari

Black Canada Mafia
The crazy thing in this little tanget to the thread is that it started with me AGREEING that Sharia Law as practiced in Saudi Arabia is a medieval abhorrence that has no place anywhere in the 21st century.

The dispute seems to be that I'm pointing out that it's kind of absurd to generalize that ALL VERSIONS OF SHARIA THAT HAVE EVER OR COULD EVER POTENTIALLY POSSIBLY EVER EXIST.

ElTorro: The American and Canadian legal systems obviously don't agree with you. As long as an ADR doesn't contradict the standard law of the land they are fine. And that's the key. What could have happened in Ontario was that the people who wanted to create a Sharia based ADR would have had to have it not contradict Canadian Law. Is that possible? It absolutely is.

Sharia is man made law and has been different everywhere and at every time it has been applied.
Sharia is man made law, informed by the Quran - which is where people are not happy with it. It's the fundamental flaw, for reasons clearly outlined by others in the thread. I don't think all implementations of sharia are going to have people stoned, or whatever, but I do think any sort of judicial system, informal or otherwise, informed by religious text is fundamentally problematic. When that religious text is one I already have many problems with at its core, this exasperates my personal dislike of the concept of Sharia law.

Even at its -best- as practiced here in Ontario, there were so many organizations - like the Canadian council of Muslim women, who were against it because of how it treats women in these less important cases. It's a broken concept that breaks even more when executed as a system.
 

Azih

Member
Wouldn't this be a discriminatory practice, allowing a different set of laws to a group of people based on their religion? It also fundamentally undermines the concept of secularity.
Not according to Canadian legal experts. Probably because ADRs are optional systems that need to be supervised by Canadian courts and be subject to Canadian law.

Edit: Kinitari, I think you have assumptions about what would have to be in Sharia that I don't. And that's the crux of this discussion. Assumptions. If it is 'Islam' then it must be 'this way that is bad'.
 

Future

Member
The proposed system would have been supervised by Canadian courts and subject to Canadian law. It wouldn't have been allowed without it. The assumption you have that 'Sharia' cannot be created that would be compatible with Canadian law doesn't hold. It would have *had* to have been otherwise it wouldn't have been allowed. It remains a complete wasted opportunity.

I think I understand you now but I believe you are naive to think that could have formed a westernized version of sharia law that would gain traction elsewhere. Even some Muslims didn't believe it possible, and no doubt others would have believed it blasphemy to existing sharia law. Can you imagine the potential problems that could have occurred in Canada due to that?

If change is to happen it has to come from Muslim nations and community. A western country changing it to fit western ideals does not sound like the path to success. Muslim countries need to change, and that happens only if the Muslim people within reject it in mass. I think people need to condemn sharia law as it is Practiced now and distance themselves from the term. Claiming that there are possible better versions of sharia law, when there hasn't been evidence of any version like this practiced and accepted anywhere, is a weak way in condemning it in my opinion. There is no grey area here.

Edit: Further, these ideals shouldn't be "western." These are basic human rights that should be accepted and promoted worldwide
 

Kinitari

Black Canada Mafia
Not according to Canadian legal experts. Probably because ADRs are optional systems that needs to be supervised by Canadian courts and be subject to Canadian law.

Edit: Kinitari, I think you have assumptions about what would have to be in Sharia that I don't. And that's the crux of this discussion. Assumptions. If it is 'Islam' then it must be 'this way that is bad'.
My assumption is that Sharia law would be informed by the Quran and the hadith, would that seem like a bad assumption?
 
Not according to Canadian legal experts. Probably because ADRs are optional systems that need to be supervised by Canadian courts and be subject to Canadian law.

Edit: Kinitari, I think you have assumptions about what would have to be in Sharia that I don't. And that's the crux of this discussion. Assumptions. If it is 'Islam' then it must be 'this way that is bad'.

It's not "islam" it's religion.
 

mAcOdIn

Member
Also, to make this legal system work for real you would have to convince people who want Sharia that this neo-sharia is better and not actually heretical, which would be rather difficult.
I actually don't think that would be that hard. We know there's lots of moderate Muslims and we know there's lots of moderate Imams, preachers or whatnot in the west preaching. While I think creating a nationally agreed upon western version of Sharia I could see a more communal version getting use first and maybe it gaining traction from there. Aside from the religious aspect it's really no different from you catching a neighbors kid stealing from you and you and the parents agreeing on a punishment without calling the cops. We use alternate methods of resolving disputes all the time the twist here is that it'd be religious based. I'd imagine Christian pastors and Cardinals have probably arbitrated a lot of disputes in their time as well in the west.

Again, if both parties really want such a thing I'm mildly ok with it I just find that in practice things get a little grey, where a child who doesn't wish to be religious may be forced to undergo a religious punishment on behalf of their parents, or a non-religious employee may be subjected to the same. Again, not totally alien in the West, I'm sure a great many children who wished no part of their parent's religion have underwent religious punishment at the behest of their church or parents.

Fun fact: there's actually a lot of Christian arbitration companies that will arbitrate a dispute for you in a Christian manner already! Just looked it up.
Another major problem with theocratic law systems is that they lift the legal-philosophical debate away from the fundamental principles on which laws should be based to how a fixed and indisputable fundament should be interpreted. Contrary to constitutions, holy scriptures cannot be changed and adapted to changing times and situations.

Moreover, and perhaps more critically, the acknowledgement of that theocratic fundament opens the doors for religious conservatives likes ISIS: once you have acknowledged that is ok to base laws on holy scripture, how can you then deny groups like ISIS the legitimacy of their interpretation, especially when their interpretation is more direct and literal than yours? This is a particular problem in Islam where no central authority exists to separate orthodoxy from heresy.

By accepting any form of theocracy law system as legitimate, you directly legitimize the fundament on which insane theocratic law systems are based and delegitimize any substantial criticism you might pose against them, since anything anyone can really do is to chose one of many arbitrarily acceptable interpretations.
I think this is false.

First, religion changes all the time. It doesn't even need direct modification just for the prevailing attitude regarding the scripture to change. Whether this is better or worse than a constitutional system generally greatly depends on the views of the people of the time. In the end it comes down to who's really in charge. If you have a progressive leadership in your democracy, authoritarian, or theological government then your society will move forward, if you have regressive dickheads in power then it wont matter what form of government you have. In the end I think the more important factor is the ability to choose who's in charge and for dissenting opinions to be legal allowing a government to change with its people. So long as that is the case I think any form of governance can move forward regardless of where it derives its laws from.

Second, at least for Azih's idea, this isn't law, this is agreeing to something instead of resorting to getting the law involved. It would do nothing to empower ISIS or the like.


I think the important thing here is freedom. People often say, "well, how about just you live under your laws and leave me to live under mine?" That is what arbitration could be. I don't like it but if two parties actually want to resolve their dispute that way I don't think I have a right to tell them otherwise so long as it doesn't end with something illegal. Again, I just think people need to be wary of it being forced on people in contracts(something already happening with non-religious arbitration) and frankly I hate the idea that kids would be forced to use it by parents and their community but that's also something that already happens in the West. It may be unfair then to hold an Islamic Sharia Arbitration system up to a stricter standard than we do currently existing ones so maybe we should allow it? Look at it the other way, the fact so many people have no clue such things already exist for Christian denominations shows that they do an ok job of not applying to people who generally don't want it.
 
as a Canadian, I am against religious groups self servicing their brands of justice systems with faith based divorce courts or whatever

the rule of law should be secular, non-negotiable
 

ElTorro

I wanted to dominate the living room. Then I took an ESRAM in the knee.
Sharia is man made law and has been different everywhere and at every time it has been applied.

Come on... Sharia is based on and compliant with Islamic doctrine. You know that it is and we know that it is. I acknowledged the existence of exegetic mind-gymnastics in any religion, but that does not make it man-made (from a believer's point of view. To an atheist, it's obviously all man-made, but we know what we mean.)
 
Are they avoiding and ignoring current laws when they do this? If so, not only do I think it's wrong, but I thought the Islamic religion did as well?

No I don't think Shariah is bad punishments only.
No, they are not avoiding it or ignoring it. We should acknowledge the fact that Shariah is more concerned with making sure Muslims adhered to the banal stipulations of religion: Like if I did Wudhu (abulution) and if I take a bath, will I have to perform Wudhu again. There is a huge list of reasonings and Fatwa from people that just focus on this seemingly ridiculous thing. Stupid example, but large number of Muslims everywhere are concerned about meaningless things (to us) like these. When they get an answer and fix their problem, they are abiding by Shariah reasoning. Keep in mind I'm not downplaying the stoning or Hadd punishments that are also found in Shariah. These typically involve state officials, jurists and criminal justice system in place. This is the domain of the state. But under no reasoning whatsoever is a Muslim obligated to overthrow a society like in America or France and install their brand of Shariah.
 
as a Canadian, I am against religious groups self servicing their brands of justice systems with faith based divorce courts or whatever

the rule of law should be secular, non-negotiable

Preety much. Having to consult a religious book to determine the law has always been a problem in the past, that's why the west has secular governments now.
 
Come on... Sharia is based on and compliant with Islamic doctrine. You know that it is and we know that it is. I acknowledged the existence of exegetic mind-gymnastics in any religion, but that does not make it man-made (from a believer's point of view. To an atheist, it's obviously all man-made, but we know what we mean.)
Shariah is man made. It changes over time due to Ijtihad. That's the entire point.
 
HoEZ4ce.png

This can't be real right? Also, I love how if you wriggle free you can be let to live and women are buried to their head but men to their waist. Saudi Arabia is a shithole.
 

Azih

Member
I think I understand you now but I believe you are naive to think that could have formed a westernized version of sharia law that would gain traction elsewhere. Even some Muslims didn't believe it possible, and no doubt others would have believed it blasphemy to existing sharia law. Can you imagine the potential problems that could have occurred in Canada due to that?

The thing here is that it was Canadian Muslims who were proposing this and would have been running it so it would have come from within the Muslim community like you said was important (and I agree).

Whether it would have gained traction in other parts of the world? I don't know. I doubt it, but the world would be better of for having stuff like that in there and expanding the scope and potential of what Islamic law could be. Sharia law is already different in every country that it is applied to. And has changed in every country that uses it over the years as well. Just like every other human system of law. So I don't think any Muslim Majority country would have had any adverse reaction to Islamic law based ADRs in Ontario. They'd have just ignored it like they do with the Sharia in the country next door.

Kinitari: Yes. But I think it's already obvious that the kind of Islam you grew up in (built on the Quran and the Hadith) is completely different from the kind of Islam I grew up in (also built on the Quran and the Hadith) so what those things mean to you are not at all what they mean to me. That diversity has to be taken into account when considering what 'Sharia' could be.
 

ElTorro

I wanted to dominate the living room. Then I took an ESRAM in the knee.
First, religion changes all the time. It doesn't even need direct modification just for the prevailing attitude regarding the scripture to change.

Shariah is man made. It changes over time due to Ijtihad. That's the entire point.

This is not the same kind of change. First, constitutions generally explicitly acknowledge and welcome the need for adaptation, and they define a process for doing so. The Abrahamic religions generally do not. They establish the authority of god-given words. The only wiggle-room left is how to deal with ambiguities. But that is by far not the same as the embracement of adaptation.

Moreover, the Abrahamic scriptures are not ambiguous across the board. This is especially true for Islam. While the Christian Bible is an incoherent and unintelligible mess, rather arbitrarily compiled from different kinds of writings from different people with different agendas and from different time periods, the Qur'an is a much more consistent, intelligible, and direct book. And the Qur'an and the Sunnah prescribe way more socially normative rules.

To come back to the title of this thread, how exactly would you change Qur'an 24:2?

Qur'an 24:2 said:
This is a sura We have sent down and made obligatory: We have sent down clear revelations in it, so that you may take heed. Strike the adulteress and the adulterer one hundred times. Do not let compassion for them keep you from carrying out God’s law—if you believe in God and the Last Day—and ensure that a group of believers witnesses the punishment.

It is very obvious that the mechanisms for change are not comparable. Not at all.

Second, at least for Azih's idea, this isn't law, this is agreeing to something instead of resorting to getting the law involved. It would do nothing to empower ISIS or the like.

That does not address my point: that acknowledging holy scripture as viable source for normative societal rules validates the general approach on which groups like ISIS base their laws. And the problem with that approach is that it fundamentally way more immune to criticism than other philosophical approaches to society and law.
 

injurai

Banned
Shariah is not a "Book of Law". Hell it doesn't even exist as a codex, let alone a book. It is various conclusions reached by Islamic Jurists. You can still live in US and practice Shariah. All the Muslims do, is my point. There are Shariah Boards and Shariah Compliance certifications in US. So yeah, it exists in the west.

I mean, if your basically just equating sharia with "that which we have concluded need be practiced in order to honestly submit to Allah." then it's synonymous with just practicing you're religious freedom.

I think plenty understand that sharia is different to each person, and is reached through a conclusion. Like you said yourself it's not a book of law.

When non-Muslim westerners refer to sharia, I think they often do so in reference to something else. Yes it can be and is what you claim it is. But there is also a tradition within the Muslim tradition to have the head of state be the religious leader. Which is a direct observation of Muhammad's role, and at the roots of the Shia Sunni split. Obviously many Muslims do not follow either of these interpretations, but many do and it is instituted across the world.

So when people talk about sharia being incompatible in the west, they are referring to this particular interpretation. There are plenty conservative theologians in the west that would conflate radical desires of sharia with more innocuous pursuits of faith. They are pushing a particular agenda which I quite frankly abhor. But I also abhor the fact that there is this more insidious version of theocracy. The Christian world has struggle with theocracies for most Europe's recent history, so it's not unique to Islam. Even our state of Utah is riddled with Mormon bias and law. They're are plenty of local counties that are dry as a result of the expression of Christian ideals.

While I applaud progressive secularist within any religion, I must be honest when I don't share in their faith. Which is to say I'm of the understanding that those religions are human institutions subject to failures of interpretation. Seeing that their are interpretations that I abhor, I'm glad people denounce such beliefs. But I'm also concerned that those who uphold radical schools of thought, are doing so under the belief that they are follow a static body of truth. Even moderates despite having a better interpretation, will often still see their faith as something that complies with a static body of truth. There are also plenty of people that betray the tenants of their own faith in order to be progressive and modern, yet they still think that somehow there is a static pure essence that the subscribe to, and somehow the codification of their religion has been tainted over time. Yet we have people that believe their holy books are pure, and free thought that contradicts such tenants is false. This is often a recipe for extremism. But even in moderate, loose, allegorical interpretations; People still feel it has no place in secular law. I would argue that merely practicing sharia within the community is not equivalent with it being compatible within western society. What your describing is a separate cultural tradition being practiced alongside established governance.
 

ElTorro

I wanted to dominate the living room. Then I took an ESRAM in the knee.
By the way, I always find it rather unproductive to argue such topics over and over again on Internet forums, since much of the arguments are based on claims (historical, theological, etc.) that need a larger body of knowledge to be validated or invalidated. Yet nobody can provide that much information via a forum post.

So I am always interested in book recommendations that argue well for the contrary position, if you guys have any.
 

Kinitari

Black Canada Mafia
The thing here is that it was Canadian Muslims who were proposing this and would have been running it so it would have come from within the Muslim community like you said was important (and I agree).

Whether it would have gained traction in other parts of the world? I don't know. I doubt it, but the world would be better of for having stuff like that in there and expanding the scope and potential of what Islamic law could be. Sharia law is already different in every country that it is applied to. And has changed in every country that uses it over the years as well. Just like every other human system of law. So I don't think any Muslim Majority country would have had any adverse reaction to Islamic law based ADRs in Ontario. They'd have just ignored it like they do with the Sharia in the country next door.

Kinitari: Yes. But I think it's already obvious that the kind of Islam you grew up in (built on the Quran and the Hadith) is completely different from the kind of Islam I grew up in (also built on the Quran and the Hadith) so what those things mean to you are not at all what they mean to me. That diversity has to be taken into account when considering what 'Sharia' could be.
Maybe it would help if we stopped discussing this so abstractly. Can you give an example of what you would describe as a non offensive resolution to an issue derived from your ideal Sharia arbitration?
 

pgtl_10

Member
Since a lot of talk on this thread have been reforming Islam/Middle East, I came across this article:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2015/12/03/ayaan-hirsi-ali-wants-modify-muslims/

It does a good job explaining reform in Islam:



Most Muslim countries, for their part, long ago recognized the utility of secular laws to supplement or even supersede sharia. To governments seeking to build states in a fast-paced, competitive, and increasingly complex world, traditional Islamic law came to be seen not as too rigid—as Hirsi Ali would have it—but rather as too unpredictable, too open to the vagaries of individual interpretation by judges with little knowledge of the world outside scripture.

Keen to “catch up” with Europe, the Ottoman Empire sharply restricted the role of sharia courts in the mid-nineteenth century, ending in the process most legal distinctions between Muslims and other subjects. Tossing out reams of accumulated Islamic jurisprudence in the matter, the Bey of Tunis summarily abolished slavery in 1846, two decades before the United States. In the early twentieth century Egypt adopted largely French and Turkey largely Swiss law codes. Among the few modern countries that continue to declare sharia the sole law of the land, Saudi Arabia nevertheless has since the 1960s used civil law to regulate commerce, as a matter of pragmatism.

Such evolutions remain tentative, incomplete, and contested. Turkey in recent decades has seen a backlash against the secularization imposed nearly a century ago by Kemal Atatürk. Egypt, for its part, has struggled repeatedly to arrive at a constitution that appears to give primacy to sharia while effectively confining religious law within the bounds of civil codes; its laws are today a messy tangle of sharia-based and secular rules. In an appeal to populism in Pakistan in the 1980s, the dictator Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq pursued a radical program to revive application of sharia, including severe punishments for such crimes as blasphemy; Pakistani governments in the decades since have tried to back away from some of its more controversial aspects.

Where courts are crowded and corrupt, which is all too often the case in poorer Muslim countries, sharia retains a strong pull as an imagined panacea, a fact reflected in opinion polls. And in places such as Somalia or Afghanistan where the central government has collapsed or lost legitimacy, Muslim societies have often reverted to laws based more explicitly on scripture, including extreme punishments such as cutting off the hand of a thief. Some Muslims in minority communities, meanwhile, have turned in on themselves, creating what some describe as Islamic ghettoes in places such as the suburbs of Paris, or Bradford and Birmingham in England.

I think this part is pretty telling. In countries where the central government collapses or loses legitimacy, Sharia becomes a fallback.
 

nynt9

Member
Since a lot of talk on this thread have been reforming Islam/Middle East, I came across this article:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2015/12/03/ayaan-hirsi-ali-wants-modify-muslims/

It does a good job explaining reform in Islam:

I think this part is pretty telling. In countries where the central government collapses or loses legitimacy, Sharia becomes a fallback.

I mean, in Turkey's case, the fundamentalists appealed to the religious feelings of the less educated parts of the populace, created religious strife and rode on that wave to come to power and desecularize the country and establish their corrupt regime.
 

pgtl_10

Member
I mean, in Turkey's case, the fundamentalists appealed to the religious feelings of the less educated parts of the populace, created religious strife and rode on that wave to come to power and desecularize the country and establish their corrupt regime.

I think that's part of what the article says. The concept of "reforming Islam" ignores that many Muslim countries change interpretations when they see fit much like what happen in Christian societies.

Religious often make a comeback when people feel that the government is non-existent or lost its legitimacy or the society is threatened by a more powerful society.

The article is a good read and does a better job than I explaining Islamism even if it is a book review.
 

pgtl_10

Member
I mean, in Turkey's case, the fundamentalists appealed to the religious feelings of the less educated parts of the populace, created religious strife and rode on that wave to come to power and desecularize the country and establish their corrupt regime.

I think that's part of what the article says. The concept of "reforming Islam" ignores that many Muslim countries change interpretations when they see fit much like what happen in Christian societies.

Strict religious interpretations often make a comeback when people feel that the government is non-existent or lost its legitimacy or the society is threatened by a more powerful society.

The article is a good read and does a better job than I explaining Islamism even if it is a book review.
 
I mean, if your basically just equating sharia with "that which we have concluded need be practiced in order to honestly submit to Allah." then it's synonymous with just practicing you're religious freedom.

I think plenty understand that sharia is different to each person, and is reached through a conclusion. Like you said yourself it's not a book of law.

When non-Muslim westerners refer to sharia, I think they often do so in reference to something else. Yes it can be and is what you claim it is. But there is also a tradition within the Muslim tradition to have the head of state be the religious leader. Which is a direct observation of Muhammad's role, and at the roots of the Shia Sunni split. Obviously many Muslims do not follow either of these interpretations, but many do and it is instituted across the world.

So when people talk about sharia being incompatible in the west, they are referring to this particular interpretation. There are plenty conservative theologians in the west that would conflate radical desires of sharia with more innocuous pursuits of faith. They are pushing a particular agenda which I quite frankly abhor. But I also abhor the fact that there is this more insidious version of theocracy. The Christian world has struggle with theocracies for most Europe's recent history, so it's not unique to Islam. Even our state of Utah is riddled with Mormon bias and law. They're are plenty of local counties that are dry as a result of the expression of Christian ideals.

While I applaud progressive secularist within any religion, I must be honest when I don't share in their faith. Which is to say I'm of the understanding that those religions are human institutions subject to failures of interpretation. Seeing that their are interpretations that I abhor, I'm glad people denounce such beliefs. But I'm also concerned that those who uphold radical schools of thought, are doing so under the belief that they are follow a static body of truth. Even moderates despite having a better interpretation, will often still see their faith as something that complies with a static body of truth. There are also plenty of people that betray the tenants of their own faith in order to be progressive and modern, yet they still think that somehow there is a static pure essence that the subscribe to, and somehow the codification of their religion has been tainted over time. Yet we have people that believe their holy books are pure, and free thought that contradicts such tenants is false. This is often a recipe for extremism. But even in moderate, loose, allegorical interpretations; People still feel it has no place in secular law. I would argue that merely practicing sharia within the community is not equivalent with it being compatible within western society. What your describing is a separate cultural tradition being practiced alongside established governance.
That's largely my point (that Shariah is mostly religious governance). We really need to understand what Shariah is and what it means to different people, especially Muslims who seemingly want it. For Muslims Shariah governs their religion and it's rituals. It's the factcheck body to properly pray, fast, give alms, abide by it's injunctions on marriage, divorce and inheritance, and be in a general state of ritual purity. The broader question was does Shariah exist in the west and the answer is yes it does. The distinction you're talking about is about state functions as it relates to crime and punishment, judiciary, courts, etc.

We're veering into what a legit Islamic State is, but since you mentioned Muhammad, the Head of State by Muhammad's very directives is whoever you decide between your consultations (Shura). He did not stipulate the person be a religious leader AKA pope. That can be good or bad depending on which way you look at it. The religious leadership role was always the domain of Ulema, or the classically trained scholars of jurispudence and law.

The lack of codification of Shariah should be kept that way. If it was formed into a codex, then we would have had bigger problems. Instead, the religious institutions should revisit the laws derived by the 9th century scholars. The religion definitely allows them to do that. But due to the lack of single Muslim polity after the Ottoman Caliphate was disbanded, this task is herculean.
 

pgtl_10

Member
I mean, in Turkey's case, the fundamentalists appealed to the religious feelings of the less educated parts of the populace, created religious strife and rode on that wave to come to power and desecularize the country and establish their corrupt regime.

Can we be honest with ourselves? Most secular party in the Middle East have often provided poor ideas. In many cases the secular parties campaign to win the West's favor than promoting ideas or actually trying to improve inequality or improve a person standing.

In Turkey's case, the military would overthrow the governments when an Islamic party got into power. In Palestine's case, Fateh promise a two state solution only to enhance Israel's control in return for bribes. In Egypt's case one party rule by secularists, have led to massive wealth inequality.

People who vote for Islamic parties aren't doing it just because they are uneducated. They see the massive luxuries and corruption of the secular ruling class. The Islamic parties can promote what the poor want.

Secularists in the Middle East can only succeed if they pandering for Western photo ops and rallying behind authoritarian rule and actually listen to what their people want.

Secularism in the Middle East is often associated with authoritarianism and corruption just like socialism/communism in the West is associated with Stalin.
 
Can we be honest with ourselves? Most secular party in the Middle East have often provided poor ideas. In many cases the secular parties campaign to win the West's favor than promoting ideas or actually trying to improve inequality or improve a person standing.

In Turkey's case, the military would overthrow the governments when an Islamic party got into power. In Palestine's case, Fateh promise a two state solution only to enhance Israel's control in return for bribes. In Egypt's case one party rule by secularists, have led to massive wealth inequality.

People who vote for Islamic parties aren't doing it just because they are uneducated. They see the massive luxuries and corruption of the secular ruling class. The Islamic parties can promote what the poor want.

Secularists in the Middle East can only succeed if they pandering for Western photo ops and rallying behind authoritarian rule and actually listen to what their people want.

Secularism in the Middle East is often associated with authoritarianism and corruption just like socialism/communism in the West is associated with Stalin.
On top of what you said, the Islamic parties like Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, Ennahda, etc run massive social welfare programs like free food, hospital and emergency care, charities, alleviating poverty and other important programs affecting the pooor that secular dictators dont care about or run it with corruption (embezzling funds, etc). Another reason why people vote for them all the time.
 

nynt9

Member
Can we be honest with ourselves? Most secular party in the Middle East have often provided poor ideas. In many cases the secular parties campaign to win the West's favor than promoting ideas or actually trying to improve inequality or improve a person standing.

In Turkey's case, the military would overthrow the governments when an Islamic party got into power. In Palestine's case, Fateh promise a two state solution only to enhance Israel's control in return for bribes. In Egypt's case one party rule by secularists, have led to massive wealth inequality.

People who vote for Islamic parties aren't doing it just because they are uneducated. They see the massive luxuries and corruption of the secular ruling class. The Islamic parties can promote what the poor want.

Secularists in the Middle East can only succeed if they pandering for Western photo ops and rallying behind authoritarian rule and actually listen to what their people want.

Secularism in the Middle East is often associated with authoritarianism and corruption just like socialism/communism in the West is associated with Stalin.

There's more nuance to the situation than you make it seem like. Turkey was built from the ashes of the Ottoman empire, which was also the home of the caliphate. The country was founded on strict laws of laicite. The Caliphate, via nudging by the allies, tried to dismantle the Turkish republic and reestablish the Ottoman caliphate. As a result of this, due to being considered a national security threat, the caliphate was abolished. The military as a result was given reign to guard the secular reforms and were to overthrow the government if other branches of government were overtaken by non-secular interests - this was intended as a protection mechanism against foreign interests trying to divide the country by reestablishing the caliphate.

It's not that any islamic party in power would be overthrown, it's when secularity was threatened. You might disagree with this, but it wasn't originally designed to improve inequality.

Regardless, Erdogan simply took control of the military as well and imprisoned every general who could potentially speak up against him by framing them in a conspiracy with forged documents, but that's neither here nor there.

On top of what you said, the Islamic parties like Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, Ennahda, etc run massive social welfare programs like free food, hospital and emergency care, charities, alleviating poverty and other important programs affecting the pooor that secular dictators dont care about or run it with corruption (embezzling funds, etc). Another reason why people vote for them all the time.

They do this not out of the good of their hearts, you know. They do it to sow unrest and promote people to come to their side and cause them to distrust the government.
 

injurai

Banned
They do this not out of the good of their hearts, you know. They do it to sow unrest and promote people to come to their side and cause them to distrust the government.

Whatever ulterior motive a group might have, I find it hard to think they unabashedly are not doing so out of their own heart. They most certainly are, and they see the most disenfranchised as being the class must hurt by the established systems. Admitting so is not a concession, but the first step in addressing ideological objections.
 

McLovin

Member
Maybe that religion really is the problem. Seems like there's always going to be an "Isis" be it extremists or their government itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom