Will Sharia Law ever work in Britain?

[Uthman]

Hello again,

In reality, Islam is only what Muslims are.

Can you please expand a little on this statement? I'm not sure I know what you mean by it.

Thanks.

Regards

 

[Skavau]

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.

Total, unquestioning obedience?

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

Assuming that is true - your assertion is not credible in reality. There are Muslims that may be irrational, make bad judgments or be plain horrible. So how do you know this?

And how does an obedient wife who may not know better differentiate between a 'rational' or 'irrational' command as per Islam?

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.

This is the patronising part. I cannot help but see it as viewing a wife as an insolent child. What if the man is being irrational and the wife is disobeying an irrational command, but because of his irrationality he cannot see that? I'm sorry if you don't accept that or understand my viewpoint, but it is sincere.

 

[aamirsaab]

ICorrect 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?

You are confusing muslims and Islam.

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.

Ri'ba aka usury (a form of extortianate interest) is not allowed. Fa'eda aka interest is. Just found that out actually .

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

It's not inherintly flawed though. After the Prophet's death, the muslims that were left (i.e the generations after the companions of the Prophet) did not obey Islam correctly. From thereon, sharia law has not been properly implimented. It is not impossible to take off the ground though - just difficult because not many know what it actually is. Unlike me of course.

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?

Illusion of power to the masses. Yes it works and yes it is effective. Is it actually what it says on the tin? Hell no.

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

It works because humans don't want the responsibility but do want power (hence I called them stupid). Promise them a system which has that tagline and they will take it hook, line and sinker.

O I so called it! No true scottsman

Yes, you did indeed call it. Now calculate the amount of muslim woman who want Islam to be reformed. Probably a hundred or so among the entire world population of a billion plus muslims. That's not even a percent.

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.

It wasn't immediate stoppage to slavery but a gradual process (similar to the method of alcohol prohibition) - God knew that if there was to be an immediate halt to slavery it would be met with criticism and noone would obey it. As such it went through gradual stages, with the initial being that they were treated as actual humans (and therefore had rights which at the time was unheard of)

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 full-right? They have all the rights a man does.

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

Both of those points have been refuted countless times. For the second one, If it is in cases where the husband is an arrogant douche, the woman is free to divorce him. As I stated before, common sense.

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

Oh ho ho no you did not just say that. Seriously, when non-muslims whip that around it's really a bad move.

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.

Want some links on womens rights in Islam? page 1

page 2

Any misconceptions you most likely have are covered in those links.

Slavery is discussed here

If by those links you still don't get it, I'll continue the conversation. Otherwise, there is no point.

 

[nevesirth]

Re: It feels like life imprisonment

i voted no. it would only work if britian became 100% muslim.

gotta gree with u, unless britain besame 100% or majority muslim

 

[Trumble]

your trying to say the witness system is flawed?

No. I'm trying to say that I wouldn't want to live in a country where people are sentenced to death for 'witchcraft'. It doesn't matter which religion the "religious police" are supposed to represent; Christianity was hardly innocent of such nonsense in the past either ... but it's been a long time since Salem and Matthew Hopkins. It goes without saying that any witness system that can convict a person of a crime that has no objective reality must be flawed.

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.

That's fine as far as it goes but in practice it all comes down to perception. Most non-muslims in Britain, for example, would hardly make that distinction and can hardly be expected to. Their reaction whenever 'Sharia Law' is mentioned is therefore predictable and it's up to the muslim world to get its own house in order. If the Saudis are practicing such as distorted form of Sharia law where are the protests, demonstrations and dipomatic exchanges in and from other principally muslim nations? Silence is seen as acceptance.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

It's not inherintly flawed though. After the Prophet's death, the muslims that were left (i.e the generations after the companions of the Prophet) did not obey Islam correctly. From thereon, sharia law has not been properly implimented. It is not impossible to take off the ground though - just difficult because not many know what it actually is. Unlike me of course.

Is that true? Has shariah never actually been implemented since the death of the Prophet (pbuh)?

If that really is the case, I can't see it working anywhere, let alone in Britain.

Illusion of power to the masses. Yes it works and yes it is effective. Is it actually what it says on the tin? Hell no.

Yep - I agree with you on this one. The great majority of UK citizens opposed Britain's involvement in the Iraq war (and a million of them formed the largest protest in British history over it) but that still didn't stop Blair joining GWB. People-power? Yeah, right!

Peace

 

[Pygoscelis]

No Britain could never be ruled by Sharia law. Brittain has learned its lesson already regarding theocracy. Its a bad idea and England has the experience with its Christian history to know that.

 

[Keltoi]

The democracy practiced in the West is not pure democracy, and was never intended to be. Frankly I'm glad, since the "will of the people" is often misguided and ignorant.

I think if Sharia Law is ever implemented it would have to be done in a 100% Muslim population, and be a neutral state, meaning people choose to be there for religious and cultural reasons. That way no segment of society will be discontented.

 

[hamzahm]

Peace to all following the GUIDANCE of al-Quran and Sunnah

Respected Muslims

Shariah law will NEVER work anywhere in the world until it is adopted and implemented WHOLLY according the ALLAH'S DIVINE DICTATES.

One can't tke a part of the Sharaih and mix it with th Kaafir Tawaagheeti System. Whoever does this is a MUSHRIK because he is partnering Kuffar systems with Islamic systems by following his vain desires. You can't say you believe in ALLAH and the last day, then take man made laws and mix it with ALLAH's Pure Divine LAws. This is sharing in ALLAH exclusive domain of legislature and rulership.

Please be careful with this ...

And only ALLAH knows BEST!
hmz

 

[Gator]

Interesting article the Rev's remarks and using religious based arbitration in the US.

February 17, 2008
When God and the Law Don’t Square
By ADAM LIPTAK
A PRETTY good way to generate an outcry, as the archbishop of Canterbury learned in Britain recently, is to say that a Western legal system should make room for Shariah, or Islamic law. When the archbishop, spiritual leader of the world’s 80 million Anglicans, commented in a radio interview that such an accommodation was “unavoidable,” critics conjured images of stonings and maimings, overwhelming his more modest point.

The archbishop, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, did not propose importing Shariah into the criminal law and was referring mostly to divorces in which both sides have agreed to abide by the judgment of a religious tribunal. His proposal was groundbreaking only in extending to Islamic tribunals in Britain a role that Jewish and Christian ones have long played in the judicial systems of secular societies. Courts in the United States have endorsed all three kinds of tribunals.

In 2003, for instance, a Texas appeals court referred a divorce case to a local tribunal called the Texas Islamic Court. In 2005, the federal appeals court in New Orleans affirmed an award in an employment arbitration by the Institute for Christian Conciliation, which uses Biblical teachings to settle disputes. And state courts routinely enforce the decisions made by a Jewish court, known as a bet din, in commercial and family law cases.

Link to full article - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/weekinreview/17liptak.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Thanks.

 

[Isambard]

You are confusing muslims and Islam.

Then is there any sort of logic behind Islam?

Ri'ba aka usury (a form of extortianate interest) is not allowed. Fa'eda aka interest is. Just found that out actually .

Never heard of that before. Mind giving me a link where I could get more info?

It's not inherintly flawed though. After the Prophet's death, the muslims that were left (i.e the generations after the companions of the Prophet) did not obey Islam correctly. From thereon, sharia law has not been properly implimented. It is not impossible to take off the ground though - just difficult because not many know what it actually is. Unlike me of course.


Yeah, needing a prophet from God for a political system to work esp. when no more prophets are suppose show up seems like a pretty big inherent flaw to mekay:

Illusion of power to the masses. Yes it works and yes it is effective. Is it actually what it says on the tin? Hell no.

Again, depends what country and which time period you are referring to.

It works because humans don't want the responsibility but do want power (hence I called them stupid). Promise them a system which has that tagline and they will take it hook, line and sinker.

Shariah promises alot more and Id say in general more folks like the sound of it as opposed to a liberal democracy. Yet shariah still fails to materialize in any meaningful way.

Yes, you did indeed call it. Now calculate the amount of muslim woman who want Islam to be reformed. Probably a hundred or so among the entire world population of a billion plus muslims. That's not even a percent.

Ignoring the shifting of the goal post, appeal to numbers certainly isnt a good strategy when it comes this sorta thing. Why? Well minus the shi'a (who I have a feeling you wouldnt call true muslims). Minus, the extreme fundies, Minus the Islamic reformists, Minus the apathetic, Minus the closest deists, Minus those who know almost nothing about islam yet call themselves muslims.

Now look at the women reformers in Islam, it isnt a few hundred, they have a few thousand. They tend to have really big rallys round these parts.

It wasn't immediate stoppage to slavery but a gradual process (similar to the method of alcohol prohibition) - God knew that if there was to be an immediate halt to slavery it would be met with criticism and noone would obey it. As such it went through gradual stages, with the initial being that they were treated as actual humans (and therefore had rights which at the time was unheard of)

So God is afraid of what people might say? Seems like a cowardly God to me. He also didnt seem to care too much in regards to his other rules. There is also the fun fact the Muslim countries were indeed the last the abolish slavery.

What full-right? They have all the rights a man does.



"In Islam, the sexes are considered equal before God. At the same time, Islamic law and practice recognize differences between sexes, resulting in different rights and obligations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_roles_in_Islam

Both of those points have been refuted countless times. For the second one, If it is in cases where the husband is an arrogant douche, the woman is free to divorce him. As I stated before, common sense.

Refuted means its not true and Im operating under a misconception. Noone has done as such. Gender roles exist. If that sounds bad to you then switch religions

Oh ho ho no you did not just say that. Seriously, when non-muslims whip that around it's really a bad move.

I wouldnt have to whip it out if you kept claiming falsehoods about the Qur'an and hadiths

Want some links on womens rights in Islam? page 1

page 2

Any misconceptions you most likely have are covered in those links.

Slavery is discussed here

If by those links you still don't get it, I'll continue the conversation. Otherwise, there is no point.

You seek to strawman me in the first article. I never said Women were oppressed or liberated under Islam. I said universal rights do not go hand in hand with Islam which I have yet to see evidence for.

As per slavery, redacting history does little to sway me.

Theres no point if you dont bother to look up what rights are, which is what ive been saying over and over. Argueing from ignorance doesnt make you right, especially when its agaisnt someone who understands the issues at hand.

 

[Uthman]

I reckon the reason that the reason the correct Shari'ah has not been implemented anywhere in it's entirety in a very long time is down to two key factors.

• Lack of knowledge and understanding.
• Lack of support.

Each factor has it's own underlying reasons. Both factors are linked.

 

[Uthman]

I really shouldn't post things like that when I don't the time to back up my claims. :hmm:

 

[aamirsaab]

Long post.

If the Saudis are practicing such as distorted form of Sharia law where are the protests, demonstrations and dipomatic exchanges in and from other principally muslim nations? Silence is seen as acceptance.

Indeed. It shows how far muslims have fallen without a Prophet to guide them. Once a great and powerful group is now shattered into many broken pieces.

Greetings,


Is that true? Has shariah never actually been implemented since the death of the Prophet (pbuh)?

If that really is the case, I can't see it working anywhere, let alone in Britain.

It has been implimented in terms of the law. But I'm not sure if there is a caliphate running in saudi, nigeria or afhganistan (main countries where sharia law seems to be implimented). However, all three suffer from dogmatism and lack common sense. Though in Nigeria's case it is different since there are two seperate law systems running together (thus causing confusion)

Then is there any sort of logic behind Islam?

Yes. Plenty. I'll give several examples:
That which is haram is so because it is harmful to do e.g. drink alcohol, eating pork (because only 98% of their uri remains in their body and only 2% is let out - thus you are essentially eating pig crap which is bad for you).

Never heard of that before. Mind giving me a link where I could get more info?

Here we go click me

Yeah, needing a prophet from God for a political system to work esp. when no more prophets are suppose show up seems like a pretty big inherent flaw to me

God recognised this and hence we have the hadith and sunnah. By acting upon those we are able to replicate (in terms of actions) the teachings of the Prophet and thus carry out sharia. A group of those who are in that path are usually named the caliphate. As of today, I don't think there is an existing caliphate and so technically sharia law is not actually in place.

Again, depends what country and which time period you are referring to.

UK, Pre-Iraq war. Million man march. No effect on war. However, I do believe the Greeks interpretation of democracy was the ideal - every decision the ruling government was to make was voted by the people.

Shariah promises alot more and Id say in general more folks like the sound of it as opposed to a liberal democracy. Yet shariah still fails to materialize in any meaningful way.

It fails to materialize because it relies on a caliphate (or islamic state) .

Yes, you did indeed call it. Now calculate the amount of muslim woman who want Islam to be reformed. Probably a hundred or so among the entire world population of a billion plus muslims. That's not even a percent.

Ignoring the shifting of the goal post, appeal to numbers certainly isnt a good strategy when it comes this sorta thing. Why? Well minus the shi'a (who I have a feeling you wouldnt call true muslims). Minus, the extreme fundies, Minus the Islamic reformists, Minus the apathetic, Minus the closest deists, Minus those who know almost nothing about islam yet call themselves muslims. Now look at the women reformers in Islam, it isnt a few hundred, they have a few thousand. They tend to have really big rallys round these parts.

True muslim or not, the amount of women calling for reforms in Islam is insignificant on a face level. Even if you were to go deeper you'd find what I explained before: their understanding is warped. Now I don't mind muslims not doing what Islam tells them to do, but if they then go around and say ''Oh we want a reform in Islam'' then how can you expect that to be representative of Islam?

So God is afraid of what people might say? Seems like a cowardly God to me. He also didnt seem to care too much in regards to his other rules. There is also the fun fact the Muslim countries were indeed the last the abolish slavery.

God was doing it for the benefit of mankind. Had he demanded slavery be abolished imediately it would not have had the desired effect: abolishment of slavery. It's the same with abolishing anything: Smokers don't go cold turkey in one night because it is too difficult and too much for them to ask. Similarly, since slavery was so common at that time asking for it to be immediately halted would not have worked.

"In Islam, the sexes are considered equal before God. At the same time, Islamic law and practice recognize differences between sexes, resulting in different rights and obligations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_roles_in_Islam

Ah the great info site that is wikipedia....Ok

Refuted means its not true and Im operating under a misconception. Noone has done as such. Gender roles exist. If that sounds bad to you then switch religions

Certain gender roles exist. From the wiki link, it's two for the female. A whopping world-stopping two. Both of which are core roles anyway (meaning that's their core function to begin with). Unlike certain cultural barriers, Islam also gives women the same rights. Those gender roles already exist - Islam just reinforced them and said ''Hey you've also got rights''.

I wouldnt have to whip it out if you kept claiming falsehoods about the Qur'an and hadiths

I wasn't claiming falsehoods. I claimed the truth and nothing but. You decided to drop in the standard non-muslim special supreme: ''err have you read the Quran?!'' To which I say yes I have. Have you? Or better yet, have you understood the first few words? If not, do not attempt to debate the Quran and hadith with a muslim on a muslim forum.

You seek to strawman me in the first article. I never said Women were oppressed or liberated under Islam. I said universal rights do not go hand in hand with Islam which I have yet to see evidence for.

Check the Prophet's history and you'll see the rights. Unfortunately, it is common nowadays to see oppression to womens (yes I do admit this) but this is not because of Islam. It's because of stupid muslims who have too much power and little sense. And those women who want a reform in Islam do so because of those corrupted muslim leaders. So it is not Islam's fault but the fault of muslims.

As per slavery, redacting history does little to sway me.

My aim was to offer an explanation not to sway you or convert you with my awesomeness. As far as I am concerned I did what I set out to do.

Theres no point if you dont bother to look up what rights are, which is what ive been saying over and over. Argueing from ignorance doesnt make you right, especially when its agaisnt someone who understands the issues at hand.

And I keep saying ''what rights'' but you don't actually answer it. You gave something about certain women who want a reform in Islam (which was a reply to my statement I know this) and I've gone over it many times, even giving you links to explain and add further reading for you. And then you say ''oh don't give me a history lesson''. I'm telling you how it was and how it should be under Islam and sharia law.

 

[Isambard]

Yes. Plenty. I'll give several examples:
That which is haram is so because it is harmful to do e.g. drink alcohol, eating pork (because only 98% of their uri remains in their body and only 2% is let out - thus you are essentially eating pig crap which is bad for you).

Sounds preventative to me. Nothing about moderation. Still, this fails to make sense of rulings on music or dress codes or witchraft etc.

Here we go click me

Interesting Ill comeback to this when I get a chance

God recognised this and hence we have the hadith and sunnah. By acting upon those we are able to replicate (in terms of actions) the teachings of the Prophet and thus carry out sharia. A group of those who are in that path are usually named the caliphate. As of today, I don't think there is an existing caliphate and so technically sharia law is not actually in place.

So you need someone who is comparable to Muhammed? Does this include Gibreel whispering in his ear as well?

UK, Pre-Iraq war. Million man march. No effect on war. However, I do believe the Greeks interpretation of democracy was the ideal - every decision the ruling government was to make was voted by the people.

Uk has a shadey electoral system. That doesnt have to do with a liberal democracy persay simply a political monopoly on a centralist position for the labour party. Switiching to a Canadian, French or german model would be better IMHO.

Things with the anti-war protests has to do with political apathy and not (typically) with some secret service dedicated to changing polls.

Athenian democracy is hardly something to be praised as it was so successful in monopolizing sufferage on whoever the already enfrancaised de-clared a "person". The majority of the population was excluded from political considerations.
It fails to materialize because it relies on a caliphate (or islamic state) .

Yes, you did indeed call it. Now calculate the amount of muslim woman who want Islam to be reformed. Probably a hundred or so among the entire world population of a billion plus muslims. That's not even a percent.

Do you have the numbers saying its less than a percent?

True muslim or not, the amount of women calling for reforms in Islam is insignificant on a face level. Even if you were to go deeper you'd find what I explained before: their understanding is warped. Now I don't mind muslims not doing what Islam tells them to do, but if they then go around and say ''Oh we want a reform in Islam'' then how can you expect that to be representative of Islam?

Its not so insignificant when you consider how many "true muslims" (one that agree with your theological position) are. Discount all the groups Ive mentioned. How large is the muslim populace now? Compare that to the pop. of muslim reformers, what is the ratio?

God was doing it for the benefit of mankind. Had he demanded slavery be abolished imediately it would not have had the desired effect: abolishment of slavery. It's the same with abolishing anything: Smokers don't go cold turkey in one night because it is too difficult and too much for them to ask. Similarly, since slavery was so common at that time asking for it to be immediately halted would not have worked.

So Allah can split the moon, flood the Earth, send prophets to all corners of the Earth, and make predictions about the future. Yet when it came to slavery, he's afraid about what people think? Why didnt this fear seep in when Muhammed was commanded to get rid of all the idols? Or when the early Muhammed followers suffered great hardships from the Meccans?

I guess God ran out of mana potions to miracle his way eh?kay:

Ah the great info site that is wikipedia....Ok

That it is. Gives good summeries. Or is there something you contest?

Certain gender roles exist. From the wiki link, it's two for the female. A whopping world-stopping two. Both of which are core roles anyway (meaning that's their core function to begin with). Unlike certain cultural barriers, Islam also gives women the same rights. Those gender roles already exist - Islam just reinforced them and said ''Hey you've also got rights''.

Nothing like playing down the numbers eh? Well I can do it too. "Hittler was a great man who lifted the german spirit, built all sorts of infastructure, boosted Germay's economy and made it powerful once again. His ONE problem was with jews..."

Then you have the same problem as with slavery. Was Allah too weak to take on tradition?

I wasn't claiming falsehoods. I claimed the truth and nothing but. You decided to drop in the standard non-muslim special supreme: ''err have you read the Quran?!'' To which I say yes I have. Have you? Or better yet, have you understood the first few words? If not, do not attempt to debate the Quran and hadith with a muslim on a muslim forum.

What truths are these? You seemed to change your position with every posting while mine remains the same.

Islam and equal rights are mutually exclusive
Non-muslims are second class citizens under a Sharia state.

Check the Prophet's history and you'll see the rights. Unfortunately, it is common nowadays to see oppression to womens (yes I do admit this) but this is not because of Islam. It's because of stupid muslims who have too much power and little sense. And those women who want a reform in Islam do so because of those corrupted muslim leaders. So it is not Islam's fault but the fault of muslims.

I see nothing like equal or universal rights under Islam or Muhammed's history.

And I keep saying ''what rights'' but you don't actually answer it. You gave something about certain women who want a reform in Islam (which was a reply to my statement I know this) and I've gone over it many times, even giving you links to explain and add further reading for you. And then you say ''oh don't give me a history lesson''. I'm telling you how it was and how it should be under Islam and sharia law.

^^Ive explained it oooo about 5-6 times now. Equal rights, that is the exact same rights that apply to men applies to women IN ALL THINGS.
Gender roles make any claims to equal or universal rights a contradiction.

As per non0muslims, lack of political rights is pretty self-explanitory.

 

[aamirsaab]

I'm going to deal with just this one comment. The others can be dealt with at another time and another thread.

^^Ive explained it oooo about 5-6 times now. Equal rights, that is the exact same rights that apply to men applies to women IN ALL THINGS.
Gender roles make any claims to equal or universal rights a contradiction.

Ok equal rights it is. As you may have known male and female have substantial differences - genetically, psychologically, physiologically, psychosocially and even neurologically. Thus, inherintly the genders are not equal. To therefore have a law system that would provide both genders the exact same rights would ironically end up being the polar opposite of equality since the two genders are so different - to treat them both exactly the same way would create inequality.

Sharia addresses this by saying that yes you are different and as such this is reflected in the laws. To give an example; if both male and female were to be legally given the same amount of time off work for paternity then this would result in no food/resources for the family since neither of the two members is not working and thus not bringing any of the food in! Yet some people have become so adamant about their ''rights'' that this core point is being removed (at least in the UK). Now, obviously I'm not saying that you cannot spend time with your family. Absolutely not; I regard and Islam regards family as being a very important aspect of life that should be cherished whenever possible - but at the same time it should not be to an extent where you are not bringing home the resources for your family.

The whole point of this argument is to disntinguish the core values that need to be addressed and the only way to do so is to have a slightly different ruling for both gender. This is a neccessary innequality for mankind to propogate and Islam has addressed it. Therefore, yes you can say that there/is no true equal rights in Islam, where both genders have exactly the same laws. But, this is only because the core gender values have an equal importance (for propogation of mankind - it fits bang in there with psychology's evolutionary theories) and so there must not be confliction otherwise you would create true innequality!

To summarise; Islam addresses the fact that both genders are not the same and therefore there can never be a system that will treat them both equally because of that - it's actually not possible for that type of system to occur since by doing so you'd negate the differences between the two genders and end up being unfair even though you'd be giving the same rights to both of them. What Islam does give, however is balance and fairness among both genders and that is why :
* it has lasted 1400 or so years
* at least 20,000 females convert to Islam annually.
* the Islamic population outnumbers all other religions by millions.

As per non0muslims, lack of political rights is pretty self-explanitory.

I haven't any time left to discuss this properly. However, I shall leave you with some reading in regards to non-muslims in a sharia state.

 

[snakelegs]

Here we go click me

this was a very interesting article. it is the first time i have seen a distinction made between interest (fa'eda) and usury (reba).
because of the nature of that website (ahem), i am wondering if this reflects the mainstream muslim view.
i am really curious because this contradicts everything i've read so far.
thanks!

 

[aamirsaab]

this was a very interesting article. it is the first time i have seen a distinction made between interest (fa'eda) and usury (reba).
because of the nature of that website (ahem), i am wondering if this reflects the mainstream muslim view.
i am really curious because this contradicts everything i've read so far.
thanks!

I think it does reflect the mainstream view as it would explain how there are halaal banks. I was doing some research on it just now and the distinction between riba and fa'eda is this:
riba - charging for loans where the longer you take to pay the more you have to (so the % increases over time). With fa'eda, this does not occur.

Well, that's what I have read so far...

 

[snakelegs]

this is really interesting. so you think the following is accurate?
"Earning interest and paying interest is perfectly acceptable, as the Quran has not prohibited interest. Interest is an essential component of the financial aspect of an individual or an organization. Individuals may need to save money in a bank, may carry a credit card for convenience, or may borrow and pay interest for an automobile or to own a house. Borrowing money and thus paying interest for business loans is an essential component for business and organizations. Thus paying interest, as long as it is not considered excessive by the standard of the day and community, to a credit card company, to a financial institution for a loan of any kind (business, car, house mortgage) is allowed and perfectly legal from a Quranic point of view. Also earning interest from a financial institution like a bank or bonds or mutual fund is also fine."

 

[aamirsaab]

...Also earning interest from a financial institution like a bank or bonds or mutual fund is also fine."

Only this part I am not sure of. I'd have to ask an Imaam or scholar, since I'm not 100% sure.