Islam - What's your view on it?

[McLaren]

Shariah law has a place here in America and that is in your home, your place of worship, and between those who think alike in the same way Christians are allowed to practice their cooky ideas in the same ways if not more (see anti gay marriage activists) . Now if someone was to come out and practice sharia in a way that would be violent or hurtful to others(even if they agree) they still must face full penalty of the law here or wherever that may be. In terms of what @McLaren says about how a certain population of Muslims would like to spread their religion zi believe he is correct, but depending on his meaning behind his words I think he is wrong. I would not want to live in a Christian theocracy just as much as I would not want to live in a Muslim theocracy. There is a huge population of Christian funnies in the states who want to spread Their flavor of Christianity throughout the states and consequently the world.

Explain how you can practice Shariah Law without stepping on the toes US laws or anywhere else.

According to the Sharia law:

• Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand (above).
• Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death (only for those who are Muslims & only in a country where Islamic law is completely implemented).
• Criticizing or denying Muhammad is a prophet is punishable by death (not denying by non Muslims but criticizing only at a level where it causes mischief).
• A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death
• A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
• Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman,
• A woman's testimony in court, allowed only in property cases, carries half the weight of a man's.
• A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
• A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative,
• Meat to be eaten must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah - i.e., be Halal.

I'm underlining 3 that would related to US court cases than the rest which are more religious-based. Tell me how I can practice that, as a man, my word carries more weight than a woman's in court. It's incredibly sexist & does not allow Muslim women that are US citizens their full rights. This was a central key to why it was shut down in North Texas when they found out how the women were being ruled against.

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

Are those the only laws for sharia (I'm ignorant of the laws) but zi think I've already stated that I don't agree with those.

 

[McLaren]

Are those the only laws for sharia (I'm ignorant of the laws) but zi think I've already stated that I don't agree with those.

There are apparently 2 main sources; the famous Qur'an & one called the Sunnah. The former is considered the most important. The Sunnah is more or less, the word of mouth & was originally only verbally communicated teachings of Mohammed.

There are several areas of it that include dress code, hygiene, marital, slavery, non-muslims, dietary, criminal, etc. The problem is that when Muslims want to institute Shariah Law, they're referring to court-issues as our system is very different from their own.

I don't think a single person in the US has any actual serious problem with how they dress, eat, take care of themselves, etc. It's when they start practicing parts of it that regard legal matters that it becomes an issue, hence why the "court" in North Texas was shut down. What I posted above is a rough description of how legal matters can be resolved. There have been polls showing that a portion of Muslims would not mind instituting Shariah Law as the law of the land or mixed. We can not mix these laws with our own; women would be put at a sincere disadvantage under Shariah Law. Much of Shariah Law has been documented as encroaching on universal human rights, & there are multiple instances of Muslims stating they can not practice Shariah Law if there are universal human rights in place.

From wiki with cited sources.

Several major, predominantly Muslim countries have criticized the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) for its perceived failure to take into account the cultural and religious context of non-Western countries. Iran declared in the UN assembly that UDHR was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.[195] Islamic scholars and Islamist political parties consider 'universal human rights' arguments as imposition of a non-Muslim culture on Muslim people, a disrespect of customary cultural practices and of Islam.[196][197] In 1990, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, a group representing all Muslim majority nations, met in Cairo to respond to the UDHR, then adopted the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.[198][199]


Ann Elizabeth Mayer points to notable absences from the Cairo Declaration: provisions for democratic principles, protection for religious freedom, freedom of association and freedom of the press, as well as equality in rights and equal protection under the law. Article 24 of the Cairo declaration states that "all the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic shari'a".[200]

In 2009, the journal Free Inquiry summarized the criticism of the Cairo Declaration in an editorial: "We are deeply concerned with the changes to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by a coalition of Islamic states within the United Nations that wishes to prohibit any criticism of religion and would thus protect Islam's limited view of human rights. In view of the conditions inside the Islamic Republic of Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Syria, Bangdalesh, Iraq, and Afghanistan, we should expect that at the top of their human rights agenda would be to rectify the legal inequality of women, the suppression of political dissent, the curtailment of free expression, the persecution of ethnic minorities and religious dissenters — in short, protecting their citizens from egregious human rights violations. Instead, they are worrying about protecting Islam."[201]

Take note of this comment:

Islamic scholars and Islamist political parties consider 'universal human rights' arguments as imposition of a non-Muslim culture on Muslim people, a disrespect of customary cultural practices and of Islam.

This is exactly what happened then N. Texas court was dissolved. They claimed we were intolerant of Muslims because we wouldn't allow them to practice Shariah Law. We were intolerant because we thought American citizens should be given a trial by American laws.

 

[W3H5]

Truth is, both are books from ancient times when people were still very uncivilized, barbaric and moronic. We have evolved from that, the Islam, just as people believing in the old Testament have no place in modern society anymore.

I couldn't agree with this more and I wish more people could see the truth.

China has been the most vocal & I believe has banned fasting during Ramadan this year among a couple other things.

I've been to China's Muslim regions and can understand why they feel the need to clamp down on Islam. Their police are constantly being attacked there and they've had to install military positions throughout the big cities to keep the peace.

I noticed they had banned the carrying of Islamic artefacts and anything associated to Islam under punishment of imprisonment.

I do think that if any nation in the world is going to draw the line on Islam in an attempt to stop potential attacks and riots it will be China. As one of the only Atheist countries in the world and known for their lack of conformity with human rights agreements they could well make moves to prohibit the worship of Islam.

 

[McLaren]

I couldn't agree with this more and I wish more people could see the truth.



I've been to China's Muslim regions and can understand why they feel the need to clamp down on Islam. Their police are constantly being attacked there and they've had to install military positions throughout the big cities to keep the peace.

I noticed they had banned the carrying of Islamic artefacts and anything associated to Islam under punishment of imprisonment.

I do think that if any nation in the world is going to draw the line on Islam in an attempt to stop potential attacks and riots it will be China. As one of the only Atheist countries in the world and known for their lack of conformity with human rights agreements they could well make moves to prohibit the worship of Islam.

I must have missed that info. Are they saying the Muslims in the community are openly attacking the police for no reason, or is it in retaliation for something? I'm sincerely curious on why the police would be attacked.

 

[W3H5]

I must have missed that info. Are they saying the Muslims in the community are openly attacking the police for no reason, or is it in retaliation for something? I'm sincerely curious on why the police would be attacked.

Police responding to domestic disputes have been attacked and in some cases murdered for interfering with 'Muslim' business, e.g. a man beating his wife for whatever reason.

There has been a lot of terror attacks, not just in the Muslim regions, but all around China. Not far from where I was staying at one point a group of 10 or so fundamentalists went crazy at a train station an attacked innocent people with knifes, killing and wounding loads of people and killing a few officers who tried to stop them.

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

There are apparently 2 main sources; the famous Qur'an & one called the Sunnah. The former is considered the most important. The Sunnah is more or less, the word of mouth & was originally only verbally communicated teachings of Mohammed.

There are several areas of it that include dress code, hygiene, marital, slavery, non-muslims, dietary, criminal, etc. The problem is that when Muslims want to institute Shariah Law, they're referring to court-issues as our system is very different from their own.

I don't think a single person in the US has any actual serious problem with how they dress, eat, take care of themselves, etc. It's when they start practicing parts of it that regard legal matters that it becomes an issue, hence why the "court" in North Texas was shut down. What I posted above is a rough description of how legal matters can be resolved. There have been polls showing that a portion of Muslims would not mind instituting Shariah Law as the law of the land or mixed. We can not mix these laws with our own; women would be put at a sincere disadvantage under Shariah Law. Much of Shariah Law has been documented as encroaching on universal human rights, & there are multiple instances of Muslims stating they can not practice Shariah Law if there are universal human rights in place.

From wiki with cited sources.


Take note of this comment:

This is exactly what happened then N. Texas court was dissolved. They claimed we were intolerant of Muslims because we wouldn't allow them to practice Shariah Law. We were intolerant because we thought American citizens should be given a trial by American laws.

Wow, I have been wrong this whole time. I've been thinking with regressive blinders on this whole time in not just this argument but our previous ones across multiple threads as well. While I believe we shouldn't discriminate against any religion no matter how bad, there is one law of the land and that's the one we should live by. Western culture gets such a bad rep for previous hiccups but American culture truly is a great one. Sharia in terms of hygiene, personal choices, etc should be allowed but s court system that disadvantages and discounts facts based on gender or even religion(Maybe A non Muslim wouldn't have as much power in a sharia court, I could be wrong) is insane. It goes back to the extreme pendulum effect of racism and sicrimination over the years that people feel such criticisms no matter how justified come back to racism which is just totally false. Wow I have some thinking to do on many topics (I'm only 21 not that ignorance can be excused by age in any means)

 

[W3H5]

American culture

Oxymoron.

 

[McLaren]

Wow, I have been wrong this whole time. I've been thinking with regressive blinders on this whole time in not just this argument but our previous ones across multiple threads as well. While I believe we shouldn't discriminate against any religion no matter how bad, there is one law of the land and that's the one we should live by. Western culture gets such a bad rep for previous hiccups but American culture truly is a great one. Sharia in terms of hygiene, personal choices, etc should be allowed but s court system that disadvantages and discounts facts based on gender or even religion(Maybe A non Muslim wouldn't have as much power in a sharia court, I could be wrong) is insane. It goes back to the extreme pendulum effect of racism and sicrimination over the years that people feel such criticisms no matter how justified come back to racism which is just totally false. Wow I have some thinking to do on many topics (I'm only 21 not that ignorance can be excused by age in any means)

No need to apologize. That's just how this forum gets sometimes, myself easily included. I believe we see eye-to-eye on a lot more subjects than our previous debates may appear.

 

[McLaren]

DP* again. Argh.

 

[Imari]

We have had a couple reports of how Muslims would like their work places to allow them an hour of prayer. They were rightfully denied.

There's nothing wrong with asking though, surely? I mean, it's right up there with asking if you can take half an hour off at 3:30 every day to pick your kids up from school. The company can say yes, or they can say no.

I worked at a company where a couple of Muslims would take short prayer breaks during the day. It came out of their normal break time, so they just had shorter lunches than the rest of us, and they used an empty office to do it in. No problem. It also helped that they were by far the most productive and reliable workers in the place, if you have people that do their job well then generally you're happy to make concessions to their lifestyle.

It's certainly not something that I think should be guaranteed to every employee, but I see nothing wrong with people trying to organise it on a case by case basis.

 

[Liquid]

Where does the madness end?! Next you'll be getting smokers wanting extra fag breaks.

 

[ECGadget]

Just to get a clarification on this, if they were asking for a one hour break, this would be for the Friday prayers, not any of the usual daily prayers. Those prayers are at lunch time or thereabouts, so realistically they would only need to shift their lunch around a bit and take maybe an additional 20 minutes which they could make up. Again, as long as all the work they are due to do is done, I see no issue with it whatsoever. In fact, as an employer I would make allowances for them on the priviso that they complete their work by working later than everyone else. And I would do the same for parents going to pick up children, or smokers wanting 10 mins an hour or whatever it is. It is a policy Sir Richard Branson actually adopts, in which people can work based around their life, and as long as it gets done, he is happy. And if it works for his companies, then it would surely work for 90% of companies.

As for the Shariah law thing, that is a very very iffy topic because more often than not people mix their own traditions into Shariah law and only cite the extreme. An example is the theft punishment. If anyone thinks a person nicking an apple will result in the amputation of a hand is actually just, they are moronic. That punishment in itself had extremely stringent conditions attached to it, of which maybe one in million thiefs will meet. If even a single condition is not met, or is in doubt to have been met, that punishment is not even permissible.

Another one I know of is the fact that females get half the inheritence of a male. Sounds unfair? Well, of course it does until you look further into it. The money a male inherits is not his alone. He has to share that money with anyone who he is charged with looking after, whether it is his wife, children, siblings etc. The money a female gets is hers, and hers alone. Nobody has the right to take it from her, not even a single penny.

Anyway, I could go on explaining things further (except the rape one, which really is horrible because it makes no sense! And I will be asking someone about it if I remember) but I am afraid I have a bunch of work that needs to be done!

 

[TenEightyOne]

These are moderate followers asking these host countries to change. An extremist isn't going to ask a workplace to give them a prayer hour.

It's up to you what you do with your breaks, of course.

But, you don't see any religion but Muslims being shown wanting foreign places to adapt to them, but not the other way around.

Absolutely wrong. I've seen the same being true of Sikhs, Hindus and Christians at times. I think you have a preconceived notion that is incorrect.

 

[Imari]

Where does the madness end?! Next you'll be getting smokers wanting extra fag breaks.

Pfft, it's not like they don't take them anyway. I've always said that I should start smoking just so that I could stand outside and chat for 5-10 minutes an hour. That's at least an hour less work I have to do every day.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Pfft, it's not like they don't take them anyway. I've always said that I should start smoking just so that I could stand outside and chat for 5-10 minutes an hour. That's at least an hour less work I have to do every day.

Off-topic... but take the break, as you've pointed out they can't single you out for it...

 

[W3H5]

My manager allows me to leave at 4:30 on a Friday, providing my work is done, so I can get down the pub early.

If the company is fine with it then I don't see why it should be an issue. The only issue I can see is unfair treatment if Muslims are allowed a bit of extra time for prayers and others aren't allowed, say, an extra ten minutes a day for lunch to compensate and create a fair environment. Then problems of equality could arise.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Changing the subject, the Victorian town of Bendigo has become a battleground over a proposed mosque, with hard-liners from the left and right alike descending on the town for protest and counter-protest. A lot of them aren't even from Bendigo in the first place, but see it as the front line in the fight against the supposed Islamisation of Australia. The evening news in particular has been full of soundbytes from protesters claiming that the mosque is the first stage of a covert invasion aimed at seizing control of the country, implementing sharia law and forcing all women to undergo genital mutilation, and various other heinous but ill-defined subversions of national values.

This promoted an interesting comment from a co-worker today: we talk about identifying at-risk Muslim youth and getting them into deradicalisation programnes, but why aren't we doing the same for the super-nationalists? A lot of them come from the same demographic as those at risk of radicalisation, and while they don't use violence, they share a lot in common: disaffected young men - many of whom are alpha makes - who believe that their culture is under siege from an external entity that is incompatible with their way of life.

 

[Imari]

Off-topic... but take the break, as you've pointed out they can't single you out for it...

Oh, I often do. I just go out with the smokers, cos I really have no problem with secondhand smoke. Unless it's nasty weather, and then I stay inside and laugh at them trying to have a puff as quick as possible to get back in out of the cold.

It's just a bit of a running joke that if you smoke you don't have to do as much work.

 

[ECGadget]

Changing the subject, the Victorian town of Bendigo has become a battleground over a proposed mosque, with hard-liners from the left and right alike descending on the town for protest and counter-protest. A lot of them aren't even from Bendigo in the first place, but see it as the front line in the fight against the supposed Islamisation of Australia. The evening news in particular has been full of soundbytes from protesters claiming that the mosque is the first stage of a covert invasion aimed at seizing control of the country, implementing sharia law and forcing all women to undergo genital mutilation, and various other heinous but ill-defined subversions of national values.

You know a few things I do not understand about this here:
1) How they have come to the conclusion of a Mosque being stage one of seizing a country
2) How Sharia law could even be implemented when in Muslim countries itself they circumvent it by rewriting the laws as and when they see fit. (Let's take womens rights for example there).
3) Forcing all women to undergo genital mutilation?? Where has that come from? Circumcision (if that is what they are referring to) for women has been *encouraged* changed to 'permitted'** (information was not entirely correct) (and is practised in many places) but is not something that Islam says you have to do at all. I think even for men it is not a compulsory thing but it is more pushed for with men whilst with women it is not at all.

What I see here, and correct me if I am wrong @prisonermonkeys because you're good with all this stuff, is a world of people who think they know Islam because they have heard stories, seen cultures practise such things that just happen to be Muslim and are buying every word the media tell them?



Also, going back to a previous topic I wanted to clear up for myself: Proof of rape can be provided by a Woman on her own, though the punishments given are somewhat different (i.e. life sentence in jail or something as opposed to the traditional lashes) if enough evidence is provided (though scientific means, other witnesses, police statements or whatever). So all in all, the punishment for rape is pretty much similar to the punishment you'd see today normally anyway. Male witnesses are not required, but this again just highlights a point of people only seeing and hearing what they want to see and hear sadly, because that is all that is shown/told to them.

**permitted to the extent that only a miniscule amount of skin from the female prepuce can be removed, without causing harm. Not encouraged, only mentioned.

 

[Furinkazen]

Are some people in here (not naming names) aware that not all muslim, heck, even arab countries have backwards thinking and womens rights, etc (thinking Saudi here...)

 

[Johnnypenso]

This promoted an interesting comment from a co-worker today: we talk about identifying at-risk Muslim youth and getting them into deradicalisation programnes, but why aren't we doing the same for the super-nationalists? A lot of them come from the same demographic as those at risk of radicalisation, and while they don't use violence, they share a lot in common: disaffected young men - many of whom are alpha makes - who believe that their culture is under siege from an external entity that is incompatible with their way of life.

You answered your own question.

Just to get a clarification on this, if they were asking for a one hour break, this would be for the Friday prayers, not any of the usual daily prayers. Those prayers are at lunch time or thereabouts, so realistically they would only need to shift their lunch around a bit and take maybe an additional 20 minutes which they could make up. Again, as long as all the work they are due to do is done, I see no issue with it whatsoever. In fact, as an employer I would make allowances for them on the priviso that they complete their work by working later than everyone else. And I would do the same for parents going to pick up children, or smokers wanting 10 mins an hour or whatever it is. It is a policy Sir Richard Branson actually adopts, in which people can work based around their life, and as long as it gets done, he is happy. And if it works for his companies, then it would surely work for 90% of companies.

As for the Shariah law thing, that is a very very iffy topic because more often than not people mix their own traditions into Shariah law and only cite the extreme. An example is the theft punishment. If anyone thinks a person nicking an apple will result in the amputation of a hand is actually just, they are moronic. That punishment in itself had extremely stringent conditions attached to it, of which maybe one in million thiefs will meet. If even a single condition is not met, or is in doubt to have been met, that punishment is not even permissible.

Another one I know of is the fact that females get half the inheritence of a male. Sounds unfair? Well, of course it does until you look further into it. The money a male inherits is not his alone. He has to share that money with anyone who he is charged with looking after, whether it is his wife, children, siblings etc. The money a female gets is hers, and hers alone. Nobody has the right to take it from her, not even a single penny.

Anyway, I could go on explaining things further (except the rape one, which really is horrible because it makes no sense! And I will be asking someone about it if I remember) but I am afraid I have a bunch of work that needs to be done!

As long as the agreement is an individual one between employer and employee I have no issue with it, nor anything else between an employee and and employer so long as it's legal.

As far as the inheritance goes, a woman getting half as much as a man won't fly in the west, equal treatment under the law and all. Women are just as much responsible for siblings, children etc. and we already have the protection for men and women that no one can take their money.

You know a few things I do not understand about this here:
1) How they have come to the conclusion of a Mosque being stage one of seizing a country
2) How Sharia law could even be implemented when in Muslim countries itself they circumvent it by rewriting the laws as and when they see fit. (Let's take womens rights for example there).
3) Forcing all women to undergo genital mutilation?? Where has that come from? Circumcision (if that is what they are referring to) for women has been encouraged (and is practised in many places) but is not something that Islam says you have to do at all. I think even for men it is not a compulsory thing but it is more pushed for with men whilst with women it is not at all.

What I see here, and correct me if I am wrong @prisonermonkeys because you're good with all this stuff, is a world of people who think they know Islam because they have heard stories, seen cultures practise such things that just happen to be Muslim and are buying every word the media tell them?



Also, going back to a previous topic I wanted to clear up for myself: Proof of rape can be provided by a Woman on her own, though the punishments given are somewhat different (i.e. life sentence in jail or something as opposed to the traditional lashes) if enough evidence is provided (though scientific means, other witnesses, police statements or whatever). So all in all, the punishment for rape is pretty much similar to the punishment you'd see today normally anyway. Male witnesses are not required, but this again just highlights a point of people only seeing and hearing what they want to see and hear sadly, because that is all that is shown/told to them.

It's funny to see you mention female and male circumcision in the same response because it lends the illusion that it's the same procedure, just one for men and one for women. It's not. One involves removing some excess skin which does not affect function or pleasure and the other involves cutting off some or all of a woman's external genetalia. Big difference. I see the word "encouraged" and I think, "bullied" and "peer pressured". It should never be encouraged in any healthy culture, ever. And yes, I can easily see it being forced in more extreme believers.

In case anyone thinks this is not a common practice, the WHO says over 125,000,000 women and girls have had their genitals butchered. The practice is most common in the western, eastern, and north-eastern regions of Africa, in some countries in Asia and the Middle East, and among migrants from these areas. Procedures are usually carried out on girls 15 or younger.

Proof of rape? Why two standards? Why two punishments? Why two different burdens of proof? This stuff cannot be allowed in a western democracy for the sake of every Muslim woman and here female children.

 

[TenEightyOne]

As far as the inheritance goes, a woman getting half as much as a man won't fly in the west, equal treatment under the law and all. Women are just as much responsible for siblings, children etc. and we already have the protection for men and women that no one can take their money.

It will and it does, there are plenty of legal precedents and plenty of protection in law for such arrangements in either direction.

 

[ECGadget]

You answered your own question.

As long as the agreement is an individual one between employer and employee I have no issue with it, nor anything else between an employee and and employer so long as it's legal.

As far as the inheritance goes, a woman getting half as much as a man won't fly in the west, equal treatment under the law and all. Women are just as much responsible for siblings, children etc. and we already have the protection for men and women that no one can take their money.
It's funny to see you mention female and male circumcision in the same response because it lends the illusion that it's the same procedure, just one for men and one for women. It's not. One involves removing some excess skin which does not affect function or pleasure and the other involves cutting off some or all of a woman's external genetalia. Big difference. I see the word "encouraged" and I think, "bullied" and "peer pressured". It should never be encouraged in any healthy culture, ever. And yes, I can easily see it being forced in more extreme believers.

In case anyone thinks this is not a common practice, the WHO says over 125,000,000 women and girls have had their genitals butchered. The practice is most common in the western, eastern, and north-eastern regions of Africa, in some countries in Asia and the Middle East, and among migrants from these areas. Procedures are usually carried out on girls 15 or younger.

Proof of rape? Why two standards? Why two punishments? Why two different burdens of proof? This stuff cannot be allowed in a western democracy for the sake of every Muslim woman and here female children.

Then we are certainly in agreement with the employer/employee part.
With regards to inheritance, we're not talking about just protection of the money and who is just as responsible. Of course women are just as responsible as men for siblings, children etc. We're taking a religious value on it as well, not just a state value.

And I never said it was the same procedure. As for encouraged making you think 'bullied' or 'peer pressured', then I think we have a different dictionary meaning of it. And so the more extreme believers are the ones who go against the teachings by forcing this upon someone?

Proof of rape. What is proof of rape? We have the same situations here. If a women goes to the police and says I was raped, it has to be proved. If a witness says they saw it happen, that has to be authenticated. Why two punishments? I never said two punishments, it is up to the court of law as to which they impose. Over here we jail a guy for a while, then let him go on good behaviour. So what's the difference? Witnesses see the crime, lashes given (or maybe jail). No witness, jail time given (or maybe lashes). On the other hand, if the person is apprehended in the act (or fleeing from it etc) then evidence is there in itself and the punishment again is different. Either way, the point I am trying to make is that people are hell bent on simplifying every single rule and regulation to make it seem like a bad thing, when in fact there is far more to it then is stated. There are people in our Western world who believe rape is the girls fault for dressing provocatively. Others believe the punishment for rape is not severe enough, with some even believing capital punishment should be the punishment.
Maybe Sharia law will change this around a bit, maybe not. But it is most certainly NOT '4 men to witness said rape and only then is it considered to have happened'. Because that is just stupid. Well, actually that is beyond stupid.

 

[Johnnypenso]

It will and it does, there are plenty of legal precedents and plenty of protection in law for such arrangements in either direction.

And how easy do you think it will be for a woman to go against her family and her entire community and seek out legal help to address her concerns? Not easy.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Then we are certainly in agreement with the employer/employee part.
With regards to inheritance, we're not talking about just protection of the money and who is just as responsible. Of course women are just as responsible as men for siblings, children etc. We're taking a religious value on it as well, not just a state value.

And I never said it was the same procedure. As for encouraged making you think 'bullied' or 'peer pressured', then I think we have a different dictionary meaning of it. And so the more extreme believers are the ones who go against the teachings by forcing this upon someone?

Proof of rape. What is proof of rape? We have the same situations here. If a women goes to the police and says I was raped, it has to be proved. If a witness says they saw it happen, that has to be authenticated. Why two punishments? I never said two punishments, it is up to the court of law as to which they impose. Over here we jail a guy for a while, then let him go on good behaviour. So what's the difference? Witnesses see the crime, lashes given. No witness, jail time given. On the other hand, if the person is apprehended in the act (or fleeing from it etc) then evidence is there in itself and the punishment again is different. Either way, the point I am trying to make is that people are hell bent on simplifying every single rule and regulation to make it seem like a bad thing, when in fact there is far more to it then is stated. There are people our Western world who believe rape is the girls fault for dressing provocatively. Others believe the punishment for rape is not severe enough, with some even believing capital punishment should be the punishment.
Maybe Sharia law will change this around a bit, maybe not. But it is most certainly NOT '4 men to witness said rape and only then is it considered to have happened'. Because that is just stupid. Well, actually that is beyond stupid.

Let's talk specifics. In Saudi Arabia, where Sharia Law is practiced, this is how it works according to Wikipedia:

If the rape victim first entered the rapist's company in violation of purdah, she also stands to be punished by the law's current holdings.[2] In addition, there is no prohibition against marital rape or statutory rape.

Are you telling me this isn't how it works, at least in Saudi Arabia?

 

[McLaren]

Absolutely wrong. I've seen the same being true of Sikhs, Hindus and Christians at times. I think you have a preconceived notion that is incorrect.

Im pretty sure I noted them behind Muslims, but editing out my posts reminds me why you're blocked.

There's nothing wrong with asking though, surely? I mean, it's right up there with asking if you can take half an hour off at 3:30 every day to pick your kids up from school. The company can say yes, or they can say no.

I worked at a company where a couple of Muslims would take short prayer breaks during the day. It came out of their normal break time, so they just had shorter lunches than the rest of us, and they used an empty office to do it in. No problem. It also helped that they were by far the most productive and reliable workers in the place, if you have people that do their job well then generally you're happy to make concessions to their lifestyle.

It's certainly not something that I think should be guaranteed to every employee, but I see nothing wrong with people trying to organise it on a case by case basis.

In the case of wanting it in addition to a lunch hour? The company shared the same views you all have; do it on your breaks/lunch.

 

[ECGadget]

Let's talk specifics. In Saudi Arabia, where Sharia Law is practiced, this is how it works according to Wikipedia:

Are you telling me this isn't how it works, at least in Saudi Arabia?

Well unfortunately I do not live in Saudi Arabia, and I have never been there. As such I have no clue as to what rules they have there. However, a bunch of rules they have there is fundementally mixed in with the arabian culture there too, which is sad because of course Saudi Arabia is meant to be the leading light of Islam (considering the significance of the area). So no, I am not going to say that isn't how it works in Saudi Arabia, but I am going to say that it may not be how it works. But, I will say this and I am taking this from the Hadith, Qur'an and extended interpretations.

According to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) it is forbidden (not disliked, absolutely forbidden) for a man to harm his wife. Yes, according to Islam when a couple marry it gives them the right to be intimate with each other etc etc, but it forbids taking these rights by force. i.e. 'I am your husband/wife and I have a right to do such and such to you, whether you like it or not'. I believe that is what constitutes marital rape, right?

"

• People often defend such behaviour by citing prophetic traditions that strongly discourage women from refusing their husbands if they approach them for intimacy. While these texts underscore the importance of a wife fulfilling her spouse’s sexual needs (a reminder the Prophet SAW gave to men in a number of statements as well,5) they cannot be used to justify force. One such text goes on to describe the husband as one who, after being refused, “goes to bed angry.”6 If it were truly acceptable for a man to force himself on his wife, why wasn’t such an act mentioned here as a viable alternative to his wife’s refusal?

Some people also seek to confuse this issue by citing the verses in the Qur’an that outline a disciplinary method of dealing with a wife who is nashiz.78 These verses are probably among the most misunderstood, misused and misapplied of the Qur’an in our times, and must be understood in their proper exegetical context. Since an in-depth explanation of these verses is beyond the scope of this article, it will be sufficient to state that darb – which is often translated as ‘to strike lightly or tap’ – has been strictly defined by our scholars and has numerous restrictions and conditions.9 From among them is that it is done in a manner that would not cause humiliation or harm to the person, and that it is only done when it is a means of helping reconcile between the spouses, and is not a cause of resentment, enmity or hatred between them.10 It is impossible for such verses – whether looked at lexically, exegetically, or otherwise – to be used to excuse violent or forced sexual relations with one’s wife. Dr. Jamal Badawi succinctly rejects these types of false claims by stating,

“Any excess, cruelty, family violence, or abuse committed by any Muslim can never be traced, honestly, to any revelatory text (Qur’an or hadith). Such excesses and violations are to be blamed on the person(s) himself, as it shows that they are paying lip service to Islamic teachings and injunctions and failing to follow the true Sunnah of the Prophet.”11" - Shazia Ahmed on this topic

Furthermore, whilst it is true that marital rape does not have a "hadd" punishment (this is basically a predetermined one), this does not mean that it is not a punishable offence. It doesn't matter if the crime does not fall stricted under any category defined by "hadd", the judge is allowed to give any punishment they deem fit, be it jail, lashings, or anything else. Taking that further, the person raped can also immediately file for divorce according to many scholars and it would be given just like that, which is contrary to what most people think that 'Only the male is allowed to divorce in Islam'. Not true.
One of the things about intimacy in a marriage actually goes on to say that if a wife doesn't want to be intimate then the husband should question himself, try to work out what he is doing wrong. Maybe he is not caring for her, or showing the right love or maybe the wife has a problem, depressed or what not and he should be there for her.

One of the Hadith regarding this issue is: "Only a noble man treats women in an honourable manner and only an ignoble man of low character treats women disgracefully"

Moving on to rape in general (which would then cover statutory rape), throughout the history of Islam, there are Scholars who have taken such a dim view of rape that it is classed as a form of terrorism, for which the penalty has been death. 'A single person or group of people causing public disruption, killing, forcibly taking property or money, attacking or raping women, killing cattle, or disrupting agriculture' - Basic definition of Terrorism from 'Fiqh-us-Sunnah'

Rape itself can be proven by any one or combination of these things:
- Four witnesses (gender not specified)
- Confession of the attacker
- Physical evidence

If all three are presented then the rape is deemed a captial offence and the punishment that can be applied is the death penalty. If any combination are supplied then it is up to the judge as to what punishment he wishes to give, which is fully at his/her discretion, as well as the victim can claim any reasonable amount of compensation. During the time of the Prophet Muhammad however, the only regulation was that the victim came to the Prophet and could clearly identify the attacker. In those instances (and these are documented in the Hadith) the victim was let go without a single punishment, because there is only one exception for punishing the victim in Islam, and that is when the victim is not actually the victim but instead lying.

To end that on a final Hadith: "Allah has pardoned my people for the acts they do by mistake, due to forgetfulness, and what they are coerced into doing."
Rape is something a person is coerced into. Therefore the punishment should never be upon them. Whether Saudi Arabia follow this or not? None of us know.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Im pretty sure I noted them behind Muslims, but editing out my posts reminds me why you're blocked.

Your statement stood alone and I answered it, not that you'll read this I guess. You said that I didn't see other groups moving and resisting adaptation, that's untrue. I continue to believe that you're work on a fallacious misconception.

 

[McLaren]

As for the Shariah law thing, that is a very very iffy topic because more often than not people mix their own traditions into Shariah law and only cite the extreme. An example is the theft punishment. If anyone thinks a person nicking an apple will result in the amputation of a hand is actually just, they are moronic. That punishment in itself had extremely stringent conditions attached to it, of which maybe one in million thiefs will meet. If even a single condition is not met, or is in doubt to have been met, that punishment is not even permissible.

You know a few things I do not understand about this here:
1) How they have come to the conclusion of a Mosque being stage one of seizing a country
2) How Sharia law could even be implemented when in Muslim countries itself they circumvent it by rewriting the laws as and when they see fit. (Let's take womens rights for example there).
3) Forcing all women to undergo genital mutilation?? Where has that come from? Circumcision (if that is what they are referring to) for women has been encouraged (and is practised in many places) but is not something that Islam says you have to do at all. I think even for men it is not a compulsory thing but it is more pushed for with men whilst with women it is not at all.

What I see here, and correct me if I am wrong @prisonermonkeys because you're good with all this stuff, is a world of people who think they know Islam because they have heard stories, seen cultures practise such things that just happen to be Muslim and are buying every word the media tell them?

So what's all this I quoted before that claims Islamic states place Shariah Law above all else?

Several major, predominantly Muslim countries have criticized the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) for its perceived failure to take into account the cultural and religious context of non-Western countries. Iran declared in the UN assembly that UDHR was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.[195] Islamic scholars and Islamist political parties consider 'universal human rights' arguments as imposition of a non-Muslim culture on Muslim people, a disrespect of customary cultural practices and of Islam.[196][197] In 1990, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, a group representing all Muslim majority nations, met in Cairo to respond to the UDHR, then adopted the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.[198][199]


Ann Elizabeth Mayer points to notable absences from the Cairo Declaration: provisions for democratic principles, protection for religious freedom, freedom of association and freedom of the press, as well as equality in rights and equal protection under the law. Article 24 of the Cairo declaration states that "all the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic shari'a".[200]

In 2009, the journal Free Inquiry summarized the criticism of the Cairo Declaration in an editorial: "We are deeply concerned with the changes to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by a coalition of Islamic states within the United Nations that wishes to prohibit any criticism of religion and would thus protect Islam's limited view of human rights. In view of the conditions inside the Islamic Republic of Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Syria, Bangdalesh, Iraq, and Afghanistan, we should expect that at the top of their human rights agenda would be to rectify the legal inequality of women, the suppression of political dissent, the curtailment of free expression, the persecution of ethnic minorities and religious dissenters — in short, protecting their citizens from egregious human rights violations. Instead, they are worrying about protecting Islam."[201]

UDHR - an international document that states basic rights and fundamental freedoms to which all human beings are entitled.

I'm not sure how a Muslim country mixes their own traditions into Shariah Law or rewrites any law, if they reject anything that disrupts Shariah Law to begin with. Gender equality,since that's a topic you commented on, is not allowed according to Shariah Law.

Quoting the Hadith above doesn't really help as the Hadith is regarded to as a collection of thoughts & teachings by Muhammed long after he died. In Islam, the Qur'an takes place above it because Muslims believe it was revealed to Muhammed through God himself.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

How they have come to the conclusion of a Mosque being stage one of seizing a country

Because they're ignorant.

How Sharia law could even be implemented when in Muslim countries itself they circumvent it by rewriting the laws as and when they see fit.

See above.

Forcing all women to undergo genital mutilation?? Where has that come from? Circumcision (if that is what they are referring to) for women has been encouraged (and is practised in many places) but is not something that Islam says you have to do at all.

They don't let logic get in the way of their outrage. They feel as if their values and identity are under threat from an outside force that wants nothing more than to replace everything that stand for with something new and alien and then force them to identify with it.

This is not a new fear in my country, only the latest incarnation of it. During the Cold War, the "Domino Theory" was very popular, suggesting that nations would fall like dominoes to communism, allowing communism to build momentum and overrun its original intended target, Australia. It was the justification used for our involvement in the Vietnam War, a war we had no business being in. In the 1990s, that fear morphed into the fear of the Asian invasion; that over-populated Asian countries would wage covert economic warfare, buying up our land and assets and becoming de facto rulers of thr country.

What I see here, and correct me if I am wrong @prisonermonkeys because you're good with all this stuff, is a world of people who think they know Islam because they have heard stories, seen cultures practise such things that just happen to be Muslim and are buying every word the media tell them?

Sometimes I think so. I can only speak for what I see, and sometimes I see the media - particularly the conservative commentators like Andrew Bolt and Miranda Devine - who love to hate Islam and terrorism. They detest the terrorists and everything that they do, but love the idea that such a thing could exist because it's proof positive that our way of life is "right". Australia is still a very white, very Christian country, and outsiders are sometimes viewed with a latent, passive suspicion.

You answered your own question.

So that's it then, is it? "They're not violent, so they're not a problem"? Believe me, Muslim youth who are angry, but not violent are viewed as potential terrorists, so why then are Caucasian youth who are angry, but not violent are sumply viewed as exercising a right to free speech?