I was merely asking you to consider using the same value on both sides of your equation. If not you might end up arguing that pancakes taste poorly because you don't like waffles. It wouldn't be an absurd argument, but it does open about as many questions as it claims to answer.

Personally I would avoid "culture" argument. I don't see its value in this argument, because when we bring jurisprudence into the mix "the state" inevitably becomes a better and more precise unit of measure than "culture".

Saying that Islam promotes violence is a statement without much value. It doesn't even invalidate a claim that Islam promotes peace. Both statements can be true at the same time.

Saying that there currently is a trend where Islamic legal tradition causes predominantly Muslim countries to favor religious courts is something very different. This statement is precise (in the sense that it contains measurement) and it is factual (in the sense that it contains a claim of something having taken place), which means it is in theory possible to show that it is wrong.

I don't see why my statement needs a "translation" to be honest. It is fairly straightforward. Most attempts at "translations" I have seen merely try to warp it into some easily refuted spew.

But since our courts are full of such religous bias in the christainic judaic form, I think it can be shown it is not an islamic issue.

Have a look at these examples...Sharia is tough

There are some interesting cases listed in that link of actual judgements carried out.

First things first: Two wrongs don't make a right. Secondly; If anything the Christian bias of our own courts shows just how terrible it would be if they were still religious courts.

An Abrahamic religious court typically answers to God... forgive me for being a cynic, but I prefer one that that answers to the people. My experience is that God tends to agree with his clergy an awful lot.

Which religion was it that caused us to treat African Americans like slaves up until recent american history (maybe 50s).

We can easily make such a list for our own belief systems. Notably the number 1. Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad.

Are we sure this isn't just a human issue?

Ya I am line with this, but I think democracy is a religion as well. I also think courts are religious by nature.

As a Catholic I would prefer to live under Shariah in countries like Oman, Iran (which is now under a new moderate President) and Jordan. Look into people like Ali Montazeri who was widely known as the most knowledgeable senior Islamic scholar in the Iran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein..._public_career

Some countries which live under Shariah do not face the same issue of violence, crime, and disparity that we see here in the United States. Here in the US we have an issue with divorce rate and children being raised by single parents. Along with a "War on Drugs" which continues to produce violence and a prison system which is home to the majority of the worlds prison population.

In countries like Oman bullying is almost unheard of and society has a great respect for one other. I feel this is because Islam stresses the importance of respect towards non Muslims, in the Quran it is stressed that "People of the Book" Jews and Christians are to be treated with respect and dignity. And more over Islamic Scholars like Ali Montazeri points out it is the duty of Muslims to respect not only "people of the book" but all humans

Mightyboosh its important that you view the subject from both sides and understand that society could greatly benefit from a better understanding of how Sharia truly works.

Okay. Then I misinterpreted the intent of your statement.

This is good. I was really confused as to how anyone would parse "Nazi culture" especially in light of various forms of Neo-nazism that have existed post-WWII.

Some people have religious views like in the OP. Saying they dont or saying they are not religious views when they themselves hold them as religious views boggles my mind...

And it shouldn't matter if they are minority views within a religion. Were the minority views of the Amish and Mennonites to get rid of slavery not religious views? In their minds they were so the were. And i give credit to their religious views for helping to end slavery. But i shouldn't really if the arguments against the perceived bad religious views hold up. Basically religion would have no views or ideology. I would think. Whats the facts of life song. You take the good you take the bad.

Ok, I will.

Firstly, America is not the whole world, there are many other countries that you could compare Shariah states to that don't fare as badly as the US might.

Second, the divorce rate might be lower in Shariah states simply because men are allowed up to 4 wives, they are also legally allowed to beat their wives. Penalties for drug use, including alcohol, are so severe that it's no wonder that it's not common, so some Shariah controlled states produce the drugs for the rest of the world instead. The majority of the world's Heroin comes from Afghanistan, for example.

The point I'm making is that it's not actually obvious on the face of it that Shariah results in a more peaceful or respectful society and we might both need to delve more deeply into that before stating it one way or the other.

Islam might stress respect but it's my understanding that Shariah doesn't at all, that nonbelievers are referred a number of ways that are covered by the blanket term 'kaffir'.

As I mentioned in the OP, Shariah appears to actually demand discrimination against nonbelievers, what's your take on that?

That's what I was hoping to do ITT.
It appears (and I always try to take what I hear in the media with a pinch of salt) that Shariah is on the rise in the UK and I find that worrying because most of what I know about Shariah is negative.

Sharia is many things, and in its more liberal forms its actual application can be far cry from horrible, though it should also be noted that it can also imply very high levels of systematic brutality.

However, no matter how modernized and liberalized exceptionally few sharia courts practice equality before the law. Since Sharia also tends to ignore precedence, it takes only a judge to set back the clock.

Consider for example that women are very often not allowed to bear witness, and that in what we would call "vice cases" testimony is usually the only accepted evidence. There is no jury, proceedings are documented only orally, the judge answers only to God and there is no legal tradition of precedence.

What you are left with here is an almost perfect recipe for a closed loop of systematic discrimination and oppression.

I wanted to address your point about Opium in Afghanistan. Prior to the war in Afghanistan, "Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, collaborating with the United Nations to eradicate heroin production in Afghanistan, declared that growing poppies was un-Islamic. The result was a 99% reduction in the area of opium poppy farming in Taliban-controlled areas, roughly three quarters of the world's supply of heroin at the time"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Af...1994-2007b.PNG

99% reduction is extraordinary and considering the horrors of the effects of Heroin you should be able to see that in this case Sharia law is saving lives and making the community a better place. Now personally I believe Cannabis should be legal here in the US as I have discussed this in the OOT thread. Hardcore drugs otoh like herion and meth need to be treated in a different matter to send a lesson to drug dealers whom continue to ravage inner city communities.

So in continuing its failed War on Drugs the US is not going to legalize heroin anytime soon. What I'm saying here is if the US treated opium producers in the same fashion as Sharia law did in Afghanistan (2000-2001) we would not have kids growing up in broken homes and joining gangs to sell drugs.

"Presently with the resurgence of high output production of opium and heroin in post-Taliban Afghanistan, there is an ongoing heroin addiction epidemic in Russia which is claiming 30,000 lives each year, mostly among young people. There were two and half million heroin addicts in Russia by 2009"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...nt/8600847.stm

Sharia law aims to put an end to this madness

Btw "Based on UNODC data, there has been more opium poppy cultivation in each of the past four growing seasons (2004–2007) than in any one year during Taliban rule" It is widely speculated that the current US installed President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai, is involved in the drug trade.

As for Sharia being on the rise in the UK you don't think the whole of England will eventually be ruled by Sharia, do you?

Come on now this is a bit offensive, not because you are doing it on purpose but the facts are in many Islamic countries having more then 1 wife is rare. Beyond the fact that around or under 1 % or Muslims engage in plural marriage. Iran does adhere to traditional Islamic marriage but its quite rare. Even in countries like Saudi Arabia plural marriage usually only occurs within the royals not ordinary Saudis. Not that I find anything wrong with traditional Islamic plural marriage.


from wiki-

"The following countries restrict the practice of polygyny:

Egypt (1920)
Sudan (1929
India (1939)
Algeria[20]
Jordan (1951)
Syria (1953)
Morocco (1958
Bangladesh
Iraq (1959)
Pakistan (1961)
Iran (1967, 1975)
Malaysia
Kuwait
Lebanon
Southern Yemen (1974)

Some countries, including India, Iran Iraq, Bangladesh, Algeria, Lebanon, Morocco, Jordan, and Kuwait, allow women to include a clause prohibiting polygyny in marriage contracts.


One way that polygyny is still legally practiced in Iran today is through the practice of mut'a, a temporary contractual relationship based on the mutual consent of a man and a woman. Throughout the contracted time, the woman must remain exclusively faithful to the man, and in return he must provide for her financially. Although this practice is technically legal, it is very highly disputed"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygyn...t_Ban_Polygyny

uh bad example. Afghanistan has the highest addiction rate in the world. And they don't export it INSTEAD of consuming it, as you suggest, they export it because it is a failed state and the money props up the warlords and there isn't anybody to say no to it.

Actually it is a funny story, for a few years the Taliban banned the growing of poppys and it was perhaps the most effective drug reduction strategy ever implemented. Mainly they did this because they had high stores and low prices and got to sell through their stores at high prices. But the ostensible reason was that it was unislamic. This facilitated the start of opium production in Pakistan where there was almost none previously...and now of course the Taliban accepts and profits off it, as do the northern warlords.

Not Mohammed Omar or his many followers. The drug trade is currently flourishing in Afghanistan b/c of the removal of Omar and the continued corruption of Hamid Karzai

People can be as deferential to mullah Omar as they wish, but the reality on the ground today is the Taliban aids the drug trade. Yes obviously things might have been different if 2001 hadn't happened...

The Taliban cut opium production because it was an independent source of income for people and warlords and the Taliban wanted control as well as being unislamic. Now they are need of funding and surprise they are profiting from the opium trade in their areas.

Many people treat Islam as if it were an independent entity on its own for good and bad. While there are Islamic precepts they get filtered through class, politics, geographic, needs, etc.

For example, ostensibly taking pictures and video of human beings was forbidden in the Taliban's theology which they more or less enforced but hey there is YouTube and they need to use propaganda so now there is a Taliban media unit.

How should we treat drug dealers and users of hard drugs? Cant be just jailing them since you said we have the most jailed and thats not working.

I'm not sure the_kid explained how the Taliban got the production down, just that they did ego it was good.

(from a non-muslim perspective) I was pointing out the failures of the current USA legal system wrt to drug laws here in the US. Our current legal system involves arresting drug dealers which in turn simply allows another drug dealer to take in more customers, and the trend continues non stop.

That being said I do believe high level cocaine/heroin/meth dealers here in the US are directly responsible for causing severe economic problems in inner cities and even worse violence which effects those not involved in the drug trade.

So before I can answer your question I feel we need to look into all the effects of the current legal system in the US before we can compare them to Sharia law and decide which legal system is better.

It is generally believed that education and improved standards of living lead to progress in many areas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_p...2.80.932001.29

Its true but, this becomes an issue when the educators are not free from bias, are also the ones that design the test and criteria for standards of living.

So pretty much our War on Drugs