Sharia Law?

Joined Feb 2011
871 Posts | 0+
The Bitten Big Apple
Room or accommodation already is given to religious laws and religious bodies of judges that may apply to certain aspects of the lives of members of a religious group.

I don't see why Sharia could not be allowed to decide disputes between co-religionists on certain aspects of civil laws, like marriage, child custody and things like that ... as long as Sharia does not contradict the purpose and spirit of the secular laws on those subjects.
 
Joined Feb 2011
3,554 Posts | 72+
Amelia, Virginia, USA
Room or accommodation already is given to religious laws and religious bodies of judges that may apply to certain aspects of the lives of members of a religious group.

I don't see why Sharia could not be allowed to decide disputes between co-religionists on certain aspects of civil laws, like marriage, child custody and things like that ... as long as Sharia does not contradict the purpose and spirit of the secular laws on those subjects.

The problem with having two sets of laws should be obvious. Equal Protection. Which takes precedence? What if religious law is slanted toward the husband? People can arbitrate private matters however they choose, but if the issue is contentious, people will seek an advantage. What if one party disagrees with the religious ruling, and seeks redress in the courts?
One set of laws. That is one area we need less complication, not more.
 
Joined Sep 2010
7,699 Posts | 3+
currently Ancient Odessos, BG
This is much too liberalized thinking. Like I have mentioned before, not everyone can control their sexual impulses, and provocative dressing should be outlawed for safety reasons. The woman that dress like sluts, do it for attention anyway; and unfortunately, should expect some creepy onlookers...
People dress as they feel about themselves; not no draw attention. Many times a clothing is simply a question of style, not as any intended other thing.
Besides, who is to say what means "dressed as a ...."? A knee-length skirt may be modest for one, and immodest for another.
To blame a woman for being ..... and victimized is simply wrong - everyone is supposed to control their impulses, humans are not animals; with this come certain responsibilities. When there is a ...., it's the fault of the rapist /a man or a woman/, who allowed themselves to violate and force another human being. When a woman says "no", this mean "no"; everything else is a poor excuse for an unforgivable behavior.
 
Joined Sep 2010
7,699 Posts | 3+
currently Ancient Odessos, BG
C'mon dude. This is the modern feminist delusion. Woman are dictated by their emotions far too much to make rational decisions as leaders. This is not misogyny on my part, this is fact.
Men are not dictated by their emotions?
My experience shows the opposite?
Controlling emotions, or not, is not a gender trait, but a personal one.
 
Joined Oct 2007
8,433 Posts | 0+
Borneo~ that big Island in S.E. ASIA
Brunei
Not exactly a country where Sharia rules or is fully implemented if you ask me. And the fact that the draconic punishments and all the awkward stuff is written down in the same texts makes it imo unsensible to want to submit yourself or your children to.


I wonder, what's included in "family and other matters involving Muslims."?

Again: Brunei Sharia laws, at this time being even more clarified , are for MUSLIMS only. What a Belgium would call draconian here is not to Muslims. If your family is Muslim, yes: you best worry about immoral habits.
None of it applies to the non-Muslims here.

AGAIN: Sharia and civil British style judiciary are coupled here: where one fails or does not apply, the other takes over.
 
Joined Jan 2010
13,690 Posts | 14+
♪♬ ♫♪♩
Again: Brunei Sharia laws, at this time being even more clarified , are for MUSLIMS only. What a Belgium would call draconian here is not to Muslims. If your family is Muslim, yes: you best worry about immoral habits.
None of it applies to the non-Muslims here.

AGAIN: Sharia and civil British style judiciary are coupled here: where one fails or does not apply, the other takes over.
Do you feel it is a good thing that it doesn't apply to the non-Muslims, such as yourself there?
 
Joined Oct 2007
8,433 Posts | 0+
Borneo~ that big Island in S.E. ASIA
I was not aware of that, thank you for the correction :)
So right, bunyip: however, I see the use of carnal civil force by this Office as dying out during the 19th century, while the two name changes have keep their focus on ecclesiastical matters...at this time.
 
Joined Oct 2007
8,433 Posts | 0+
Borneo~ that big Island in S.E. ASIA
The problem with having two sets of laws should be obvious. Equal Protection. Which takes precedence? What if religious law is slanted toward the husband? People can arbitrate private matters however they choose, but if the issue is contentious, people will seek an advantage. What if one party disagrees with the religious ruling, and seeks redress in the courts?
One set of laws. That is one area we need less complication, not more.
This is the whole point of two laws here in my country: if their is arbitration over civil matters, there is redress. If the matter is Islamic and or moral, the civil law is inadequate.

Rather two sets of judges to rule than one, IMO.
 
Joined Oct 2007
8,433 Posts | 0+
Borneo~ that big Island in S.E. ASIA
Room or accommodation already is given to religious laws and religious bodies of judges that may apply to certain aspects of the lives of members of a religious group.

I don't see why Sharia could not be allowed to decide disputes between co-religionists on certain aspects of civil laws, like marriage, child custody and things like that ... as long as Sharia does not contradict the purpose and spirit of the secular laws on those subjects.
Bingo...There is tons of questions about "the spirit" of civil law around the world.
 
Joined Jan 2010
13,690 Posts | 14+
♪♬ ♫♪♩
This is the whole point of two laws here in my country: if their is arbitration over civil matters, there is redress. If the matter is Islamic and or moral, the civil law is inadequate.

Rather two sets of judges to rule than one, IMO.
But you, not being Muslim of faith only have one set of rules applied, am i correct?

If so: do you find it good and why/not?
 
Joined Oct 2007
8,433 Posts | 0+
Borneo~ that big Island in S.E. ASIA
Do you feel it is a good thing that it doesn't apply to the non-Muslims, such as yourself there?
No...Since I happen to not be a drinker, gambler, skirt-chaser, or gun-toting cowboy.
I love wife, don't smoke dope, don't smuggle ....o, and don't steal, rob or fight.

As a Christian, these Muslim laws just happen to suit me and my world view.
 
Joined Oct 2007
8,433 Posts | 0+
Borneo~ that big Island in S.E. ASIA
But you, not being Muslim of faith only have one set of rules applied, am i correct?

If so: do you find it good and why/not?

Right: since I am not under Shariah law, civil law is fine. But I don't break the law and respect both.
 
Joined Jan 2010
13,690 Posts | 14+
♪♬ ♫♪♩
Right: since I am not under Shariah law, civil law is fine. But I don't break the law and respect both.
But you find it good that it doesn't apply to you, or it would make no difference to you?

edit: sorry, a bit too fast here:eek:
 
Joined Jan 2010
13,690 Posts | 14+
♪♬ ♫♪♩
No...Since I happen to not be a drinker, gambler, skirt-chaser, or gun-toting cowboy.
I love wife, don't smoke dope, don't smuggle ....o, and don't steal, rob or fight.

As a Christian, these Muslim laws just happen to suit me and my world view.
If you had a son who did all of the things you just mentioned, would you prefer civil law or Sharia for him?
 
Joined Oct 2007
8,433 Posts | 0+
Borneo~ that big Island in S.E. ASIA
I chose my morals and expect him to choose his if ignores my parenting. If he chooses to break the law, any law, he must pay the price, as I have raised him to respect the law, wherever he lives. The fact that he is NOT a Muslim makes you hypothetical question moot.
 
Joined Jan 2010
13,690 Posts | 14+
♪♬ ♫♪♩
I chose my morals and expect him to choose his if ignores my parenting. If he chooses to break the law, any law, he must pay the price, as I have raised him to respect the law, wherever he lives. The fact that he is NOT a Muslim makes you hypothetical question moot.
Do i detect a slight unwillingness to answer the question, there? Let me rephrase, IF your son was a Muslim, and he ever stole something, would it, in Brunei, where you live, be possible he loses a hand, as a matter of legal sentence?
 

Trending History Discussions

Top