Will Sharia Law ever work in Britain?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cabdullahi
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 271
  • Views Views 27K

Will sharia law ever work in britain


  • Total voters
    0
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't understand what you mean by your second paragraph, but this discussion isn't going anywhere anyway, so I'm done.

وما نرسل المرسلين الا مبشرين ومنذرين ويجدل الذين كفروا بالبطل ليدحضوا به الحق واتخذوا ءايتى وما انذروا هزو

18:56 We only send the messengers as simply deliverers of good news, as well as warners. Those who disbelieve argue with falsehood to defeat the truth, and they take My proofs and warnings in vain.
 
As some one else said at some point.

In a country you have a leader who leads the country, that leader can do more than what his people can. In a muslim house the man is by the logic the leader, and by the same logic the man can do more than what the woman and children can.

Yet I really dont know what it is that a man can do but that a woman cannot!
 
Last edited:
:sl:

Yet I really dont know what it is that a man can do but that a woman cannot!

Good point!

But one must accept that men and women have biological differences. It is my belief that men in general are physically stronger than women in general. That isn't to say that women cannot lift things like men can. I just mean to say that women are generally more fragile and delicate than men (and usually a lot more afraid of breaking a nail! :okay: Joke)

With this in mind, men are given a greater degree of responsibility and are given the job of protecting the woman. A woman is seen as something very precious in Islam, which is why they are not obliged to work (although they can if they want!). On the other hand, the men do have to work to maintain their family.

I do digress...

:w:
 
Last edited:
aamirsaab said...
Name me one muslim woman who thinks they have no rights due to Islam or that they are treated unjustly because of Islam.
__________________
I cant think of one muslim woman who truly believes in Islam and is committed to allah that will tell you se is treated unjustly..However you will find that there are some women who are born muslims and are not really committed and usually have an unjust husband that will say they arent treated justly and the west will latch on to these people as proof of oppression .....Its interesting that any woman who has reverted to Islam especially western reverts will tell you its the opposite...women are treated with respect....hence why they reverted...but the critics will tell you she was brain washed, like a gun was put to her head to revert to Islam...
 
being treated unjustly and having islam command someone to treat another unjustly is completely different
 
I would like to notice something different that you talk about here. The situation when minority wants to be ruled according to their religious rules caused more talking and discussing in media and among people than it was necesary. As some muslims here noticed, muslims want only the same rights that jews already have in UK. The strange situation is that Brittons got so scared about the Sharia in their country.In this kind of way react only people who are not certain about their own indentity.So I would risk a suggestion that the problem lays not in muslim minority in UK but in brittish majority.
 
Aaron..coming from a christian..they are nice and just words...jews enjoy those rights i dont see why muslims shouldnt , esp if its only affecting them. Its not like they are asking for complete shariah law to be implemented.....i would support any religion who wanted to do the same, if it didnt affect me, as long as i can go about my business, so can they. unfortunately the media snesationalise things to see papers and im afraid even the heading of this topic is misleading to what was really proposed.
Aaron nice to know someone who isnt a muslim makes sense of the topic and can see it for what it really is...
 
true muslim....good point, so where do the brits who are born or reverted to religion go????
 
:sl:

True but a nihilist wouldn't actually give a ****. A true nihilist at least. Maybe you're semi-nihilist :) As for lack of political rights, what rights are you speaking of?

You're confusing philosophical nihilism with political apathy. Tsk tsk^o)

What restrictions are you talking about?

lack of things that would be "unislamic". Off the top of my head, the majority of my favorite cartoons, rushdie's marvelous books, (if saudi is any indication) difficulty finding the religious texts of different religions, the good majority of my favorite graphic novels etc etc.


I'm sure the following agree with you:
native americans
iraqis
afghanis
somalis
The list goes on. All promised a fanciful law system (cough democracy [where you democractically elect a dictator to ''lead'' your country for a few years] cough)

A pretty strawman to be sure. Well pretty and awkward. ^o) You realize that what i meant was the reasoning behind it. On paper a liberal democracy makes alot of sense while on paper a Sharia states falls apart. If you want to argue from implimentation in the real world, you could compare working democracies which means Im at least partially right...compared to the 0 working shariah states:coolious:

Name me one muslim woman who thinks they have no rights due to Islam or that they are treated unjustly because of Islam.

You really have never seen all those muslim women who wish to reform Islam? Must I really cite a list or are you just gonna pull a 'No true Scottsman' on me?

The fact of the matter is, women do have rights just as males do.

Say it with me. "Gender roles negate rights. Gender roles negate rights. Gender roles negate rights etc etc." Say it until you remember that gender assignments and rights are mutually exclusive unless you call on a non-person.

In fact, women under Islam have a greater importance than man. Take this hadith and think on it: Paradise is at your mother's feet. If you still cannot see the level of greatness a woman has under Islam, I'll dig up some more - believe me there are loads.

^^Ty for proving my point.
 
As some one else said at some point.

In a country you have a leader who leads the country, that leader can do more than what his people can. In a muslim house the man is by the logic the leader, and by the same logic the man can do more than what the woman and children can.

Yet I really dont know what it is that a man can do but that a woman cannot!

Thats good reasoning if you are working on a farm. Not so good reasoning if you sit in front of a computer pushing away at keys for 8hrs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As per women having different privilages, Im sure youll agree they do. And as that was a response to the misconception of Islam granting "equal rights" to women, I think I proved my point that that isnt true.

In Islaam, the importance of women is stressed so much that it's unbelievable that you would make such a statement. You are to appreciate your mother 3 times more than your father, she's your ticket to heaven, and you complete half your deen by marrying one.

The only misconception there is about women in Islaam is the fact that you think that we have less rights than men. I think you've been too influenced by FOXNews and mainstream media in general. Do a little research for yourself and you'll see just how ridiculous your statement sounds.
 
In Islaam, the importance of women is stressed so much that it's unbelievable that you would make such a statement. You are to appreciate your mother 3 times more than your father, she's your ticket to heaven, and you complete half your deen by marrying one.

The only misconception there is about women in Islaam is the fact that you think that we have less rights than men. I think you've been too influenced by FOXNews and mainstream media in general. Do a little research for yourself and you'll see just how ridiculous your statement sounds.

Ive already covered this. What you describe is not a right(s).

Respect =/ having rights. This should be obvious whenever you see someone who is extremely unpopular and a douche being aloud to continue because his/her universal rights are the same as mine even though noone respects this person. Thats what makes it a right, not a privilage.
 
Last edited:
:sl:
Isambard said:
lack of things that would be "unislamic". Off the top of my head, the majority of my favorite cartoons, rushdie's marvelous books, (if saudi is any indication) difficulty finding the religious texts of different religions, the good majority of my favorite graphic novels etc etc.
And where does it say in any sharia law that any of the items in your list would be banned? I've said it many times before, common sense runs through the laws of sharia. What you've clearly read about sharia law is rubbish.

A pretty strawman to be sure. Well pretty and awkward. You realize that what i meant was the reasoning behind it. On paper a liberal democracy makes alot of sense while on paper a Sharia states falls apart.
On paper, sharia doesn't fall apart. People are stupid so they won't understand the sheer awesomeness of sharia.

If you want to argue from implimentation in the real world, you could compare working democracies which means Im at least partially right...compared to the 0 working shariah states
The lack of sharia states is due to corruption and dogmatism. If people used their God-given common sense, they'd be able to carry out sharia properly. Democracy only works because it's an illusion of power to the masses and no responsbility. In reality the masses have no power - the leader has all the power and all the responsibility. In short, what democracy promises on face value, it fails to achieve. But since people are stupid, it works. It's like dangling Haribo infront of a child just so they come towards you. Then you give it to them and they find out it's really Porridge instead.

You really have never seen all those muslim women who wish to reform Islam? Must I really cite a list or are you just gonna pull a 'No true Scottsman' on me?
The ones who wish to reform Islam don't understand a thing about it in the first place - they've grown up with some dogmatic version of it (illustrated by their parental figures and surrounding environments) and have not actually studied the history of sharia law and the importance of both male and female genders. In fact, if you've studied Islam and the Prophet properly, you'll see the correct interpretation of sharia law and how it stopped slavery, gave women rights (more than any other methodology at that time) and enhanced the importance of both genders.

Say it with me. "Gender roles negate rights. Gender roles negate rights. Gender roles negate rights etc etc." Say it until you remember that gender assignments and rights are mutually exclusive unless you call on a non-person.
What gender roles? There aren't any in Islam other than the core values that seperate the two in the first place (one gives birth, one doesn't, one is female and one is male etc)

Ty for proving my point
I stated the importance of a female. The rights for both male and female are the same - both are free to live, to divorce, to marry, to be educated, to practice their religion and so on and so forth.
 
Last edited:
Human Rights Watch has appealed to Saudi Arabia to halt the execution of a woman convicted of witchcraft. In a letter to King Abdullah, the rights group described the trial and conviction of Fawza Falih as a miscarriage of justice.

The illiterate woman was detained by religious police in 2005 and allegedly beaten and forced to fingerprint a confession that she could not read. Among her accusers was a man who alleged she made him impotent. Human Rights Watch said that Ms Falih had exhausted all her chances of appealing against her death sentence and she could only now be saved if King Abdullah intervened.

The US-based group is asking the Saudi ruler to void Ms Falih's conviction and to bring charges against the religious police who detained her and are alleged to have mistreated her. Its letter to King Abdullah says the woman was tried for the undefined crime of witchcraft and that her conviction was on the basis of the written statements of witnesses who said that she had bewitched them.


BBC

No thanks. I don't think any further comment is really necessary, is it?
 
:sl:
Trumble, that article has everything to do with saudi and nothing to do with Sharia law. Unfortunately, the muslim-run countries today do not practice sharia law properly hence we get injustice in the name of God which is ironic, stupid and wrong. I'm getting tired of saying this and I'm pretty sure some are getting tired of hearing it so I'll make it even simpler: Islam requires common sense to understand. It is a simple as that.
 
Human Rights Watch has appealed to Saudi Arabia to halt the execution of a woman convicted of witchcraft. In a letter to King Abdullah, the rights group described the trial and conviction of Fawza Falih as a miscarriage of justice.

The illiterate woman was detained by religious police in 2005 and allegedly beaten and forced to fingerprint a confession that she could not read. Among her accusers was a man who alleged she made him impotent. Human Rights Watch said that Ms Falih had exhausted all her chances of appealing against her death sentence and she could only now be saved if King Abdullah intervened.

The US-based group is asking the Saudi ruler to void Ms Falih's conviction and to bring charges against the religious police who detained her and are alleged to have mistreated her. Its letter to King Abdullah says the woman was tried for the undefined crime of witchcraft and that her conviction was on the basis of the written statements of witnesses who said that she had bewitched them.


BBC

No thanks. I don't think any further comment is really necessary, is it?

your trying to say the witness system is flawed?

but how many of you actually understand the witness system?!

first look at the gravity of giving false witness:

It was narrated that Abu Bakrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Shall I not tell you of the greatest of major sins?” We said, “Yes indeed, O Messenger of Allaah.” He said, “Associating others with Allaah (shirk) and disobedience towards parents.” He was reclining, but then he sat up and said, “And false speech and false witness, and false speech and false witness,” and he kept on saying it until I thought he would never stop.

(Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 5631; Muslim, 87).

secondly There is no expiation for false witness apart from repentance and restoring people’s rights, if that false testimony resulted in depriving others of what was rightfully theirs.

The judge or qaadi has the right to impose whatever punishment he sees fit for the one who bore false witness.


thirdly in the end everything can be manipulated as can forensic science by the ones who conduct the tests etc etc, we leave the final justice to judgement day. In this life we strive for what we can.
 
krypton6 said:
Are you awake!? There's a big difference between Islam and muslims!
In reality, Islam is only what Muslims are.

crayon said:
I'm sure you've been on these forums long enough to know that islam neither advocates nor condones severe (and by severe I mean anything harder than with a tooth brush) beating. You don't need someone to tell you again. If you do, however, I'd be happy to elaborate.
I've read the description of women being beaten from some Muslims. At best it is patronising towards women and implies they are child-like needing to be disciplined - at worse it implies abuse and possession.

Why does the 'beating' rule not go to males either? Moreover, how can you 'beat the sense' into a woman?

Noora said:
oh yes women in the west have many rights....they are treated a first class citizens, paid the same as mens wages, not exploited as sex objects, never get beaten by men, men always take responsiblity of the women the impregnate etc etc,the list can go on and on...some people in the west are very dellusional. If women have rights in the west then give me shariah any day...
This makes no sense. Do you know the concept of rights?

Women are treated the same as men, generally. There are unlawful inequalities which exist such as courts favouring women, some employers and industries favouring women. There are also other inequalities such as the pay issues as you highlighted favouring men.

I do not disagree that there is imperfection in how equality is applied. But that is a very human thing.

AhmedJunior said:
the west gives women their rights but do u think the women(unbelievers) use these rights to do something beneficial nooo!
some of them leave their children behind to go have a night out simply because they feel free and in need to do wild things
What you describe is not a 'western' problem, but more of a problem of humanity itself. Moreover, not all women do something as you describe - so what is your complaint?

AhmedJunior said:
They are advised to wear what they want show of ur beautiful assets do u think thats women liberation, its merely a way to degrade them but to keep them happy aswell why?
It is quite telling when your world view dictates that personal liberty is in fact, oppression. So far I see your logic as nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

Osman said:
The tap of the Miswak is so light, it can only be symbolic to demonstrate the gravity of the situation.

And even at that, it is discouraged, except as a very last resort.

No doubt, a far cry from "Islam allowed men to beat women".
The principle, at least for me is far more important than the severity. How does it work? Your description implies an inherent childlike attitude of women that can be 'disciplined'. I find this extremely patronising to women and wonder what it is supposed to actually achieve. Why is it not also applied for men and how do you 'hit (or 'tap') the sense' into someone?

crayon said:
So in your opinion having no rights is not equal to oppression?
Uhm.

If you have no rights, then you are liable to any kind of oppression. The very reason we even have rights is to prevent oppression. You need to understand the purpose of rights here.
 
:sl:

And where does it say in any sharia law that any of the items in your list would be banned? I've said it many times before, common sense runs through the laws of sharia. What you've clearly read about sharia law is rubbish.

Correct me Im wrong, but Islam and shariah are frequently cited to be preventative arnt they? Now how many muslims do you believe would allow what I described above if they cant even handle some cartoons and books theyve never bothered to read?:skeleton:

On paper, sharia doesn't fall apart. People are stupid so they won't understand the sheer awesomeness of sharia.

It does actually. Economically and politically. Stripping political rights of groups only tends to work if you are pushig to heavily industrialize your country. Which is impossible to do effectively with the mass social programs shariah allegably promises. This coupled that there is no breaks (interest rates).

So on the one hand you have second class citizens based entirely on faith and not any type of merit system, on the other you have no way to improve your economy w/o having it implode.

To give you an amusing history lesson, when the french socialist and communists got into power (80 I believe?) they tried to enact an ambitious plan than resembles the promises of shariah (except it actually makes sense). Despite their efforts, the keynesian model is dated. Wanna take a guess how long before they had to retract their plans? Ill give you a hint, its one 12th of a year.

Give the above of mentioned, there is no reason to believe a "true" shariah state would last a week. Unless of course you are into fantasy :D


The lack of sharia states is due to corruption and dogmatism. If people used their God-given common sense, they'd be able to carry out sharia properly.

Strange a god given governing and economic system be so flawed eh?^o) Seems its impossible to take off the ground when other man-made models have advanced humanity to heavily.

Democracy only works because it's an illusion of power to the masses and no responsbility. In reality the masses have no power - the leader has all the power and all the responsibility.

What are you talking about? Responsibility in a democracy comes in the form of economic and political consequence to their leader's actions. This directly influences standard of living, social programs etc etc.

And what are you referring to when you mean its an illusion? Quite a few countries have switches in parties and policies directly related the feelings of thepeople. Or are we ignoring 100yrs history?^o)


In short, what democracy promises on face value, it fails to achieve. But since people are stupid, it works. It's like dangling Haribo infront of a child just so they come towards you. Then you give it to them and they find out it's really Porridge instead.

It works cause its stupid eh? So if shariah is failing agaisnt that, what does that tell us about shariah?:thankyou:

The ones who wish to reform Islam don't understand a thing about it in the first place - they've grown up with some dogmatic version of it (illustrated by their parental figures and surrounding environments) and have not actually studied the history of sharia law and the importance of both male and female genders.

O I so called it! No true scottsman:D:D

In fact, if you've studied Islam and the Prophet properly, you'll see the correct interpretation of sharia law and how it stopped slavery, gave women rights (more than any other methodology at that time) and enhanced the importance of both genders.

Why do you say it stopped slavery? The Ottoman empire dabled in the slave trade for a very longtime and no where in shariah does it say you must free all your slaves or that slavery is bad.

Noone is disputing that it gave women generally progressive rights for its time The arguement from the get-go was that Islam never got around to giving women full-rights


What gender roles? There aren't any in Islam other than the core values that seperate the two in the first place (one gives birth, one doesn't, one is female and one is male etc)

So where does a man being able to hit a woman, or the woman having to submit to the husband play into all this?

I stated the importance of a female. The rights for both male and female are the same - both are free to live, to divorce, to marry, to be educated, to practice their religion and so on and so forth.

I got a sneaking suspicion you havent looked the Qur'an and hadiths. :skeleton:

Im starting to feel like this is going in circles. Folks please read what I write before you respond. And redactions in history, economics and political theory doesnt hlp your arguements any. Learn what rights are, stop using it as a buzzword.:exhausted
 
Hello Skavau,

Thank you for your post. :)

The tap of the Miswak is so light, it can only be symbolic to demonstrate the gravity of the situation.

And even at that, it is discouraged, except as a very last resort.

No doubt, a far cry from "Islam allowed men to beat women".

The principle, at least for me is far more important than the severity. How does it work? Your description implies an inherent childlike attitude of women that can be 'disciplined'. I find this extremely patronising to women and wonder what it is supposed to actually achieve. Why is it not also applied for men and how do you 'hit (or 'tap') the sense' into someone?

Presumably coming from a place where there is a different World-view than that presented by Islam, it is understandable why you would be confused about something like this.

In order to answer your question, some background knowledge about gender roles in Islam is required. As you may be aware, men are given greater responsibility than women in Islam and are given the task of being the protectors of women. This protection is inclusive of everything - physical protection, psychological protection, financial protection e.t.c.

In return for this, women in Islam are expected to be obedient to their husbands.

I would like to quote a section from Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) last sermon:
"O People! it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under Allah's trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with anyone of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste."

In case you're interested, the full sermon can be found here. It's beautiful.

Now, it must be noted that a husband who is a Muslim would never ask his wife to do anything unreasonable. To do so would be in violation of the teachings of Islam, and in any instance where a husband does ask their wife to do something that violates Islam's teachings, he must not be obeyed. It must also be noted that if ever a relationship between a husband and wife becomes abusive, she has every right to divorce him.

However, on occasion, a wife might disobey her husband when he is not asking her to do anything unreasonable, or a wife might display ill-conduct in some other way. In such instances, it is now the wife who is violating the teachings of Islam. Since it is the duty of the husband to protect his wife, it falls under his responsibility to also protect her from Allah's wrath. Islam thereby lays out a specific methodology for how to go about doing this.

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allāh has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allāh would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance – [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allāh is ever Exalted and Grand.

~ (Qur'an - An-Nisaa (The Women), Verse 34)

With regards to the part above which says 'strike them', I hope the correct translation/interpretation of this has already become clear earlier on in the thread.

Of course, a resolution would be achieved in most cases at the advisory stage. However, if ill conduct persists after this, then still the husband is not permitted to lay a finger on the woman. Instead, he is told to 'forsake them in bed'. It is a way of negatively reinforcing her behaviour. It is very likely that a resolution would be reached at this stage, if not the first. However, if ill conduct continues to persist, then a light, symbolic tap is to be used to demonstrate how serious the situation has become, such as to warrant the husband to have had to physically touch her in this manner, which is something quite out of the ordinary. It's not something that is commonplace at all. Remember, the husband has a religious duty to prevent his wife from disobeying Allah's rules. This is as far as a husband can go to fulfil this duty.

Under no circumstances whatsoever does Islam permit a husband to ever physically abuse his wife. If ever such an incident occurs this is something very serious. Where all possible reconciliatory steps have been taken (and failed), then the best course of action will probably be a divorce.

Regards
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top