Islam in the West & Free Speech

[Orion]

Before I truly open up this topic, I must admit I am in some ways approaching it by proxy. By living in Australia, I do not experience first-hand the public opinions of Muslims/Islam that exists in post-9/11 USA, nor do I experience the massive influx and impact of Muslim immigrants into European societies.

Nevertheless, I still hear about incidences based on Islamic influence on the 'rest of the west' outside of Australia, of nature and in numbers that nevertheless alarm me. There will no doubt be an apparent one-sidedness to my position, but given what I've watched and read about, I don't feel it's something that can be easily dismissed.

The general picture I've formed is that whenever Islam makes a big movement into western countries, what quickly follows is political appeasement of the more extreme elements; reductions of freedom of expression sought by Islamic groups, under the banner of 'fighting intolerance'; frank and true opinions expressions of Islam painted as 'hate speech'; methodical removal of non-Islam religious symbols (such as the cross) and religious intolerance; direct resistance to integration and forcing Islamic beliefs where unwelcome or appropriate, and more

I of course do not speak of Islam as the actual whole, or even a majority of its members - When I generally say 'Islam' causes these things to happen, I mean more specifically the extreme or vocal elements within the faith (even those that incorrectly follow or apply it), whose efforts see Islam as a whole elevated beyond criticism or accountability for the wrongdoings of some of its adherents. Still, pretty much anywhere I look where Islam has an established or growing presence in a community, it seems that there will always be deep displeasure if not outright aggression to at least one of three things:
-Harsh but true expressions of the faith or its adherents
-Critical inquiry into the faith or adherents
-Islam and its adherents not being given special treatment or preference

I understand that most people on this forum are from the US, and thus won't have the same perspective of Islam's impact in Europe, but I nevertheless want to hear people's opinions on this. Is it right that this sort of stuff happens? Should it be at all allowed, or fought wherever possible or preferable?

[Orion]

Links, because posts/edits are being fussy about them.

True opinions critical of Islam criminalised as 'hate speech'

Saudi Christians arrested for worshiping at home

Temporary, unofficial 'Shariah' zones established in UK

Police 'covered up' violent campaign to turn London area 'Islamic'

Sharia and human rights debate stopped with threats of violence

Islam's tradition of breaking the cross

Muslim staff escape NHS hygiene rule

[Cosmic+Amarna]

I've been hearing and seeing about this, such as the freedom of speech issues in Europe...

I was also informed that Indonesia refused Lady Gaga to perform at her sold out show there.

[Nelo Angelo]

This is a good point raised. As a Muslim born in the West and raised with pretty much two different cultural aspects, both east and west, I can see why the west has or feels there are problems with Islam. One of the thing you have pointed out to a certain extent in your post comes to mind for me for a few of the topics in the links, that 'the extreme or vocal elements within the faith (even those that incorrectly follow or apply it), whose efforts see Islam as a whole elevated beyond criticism or accountability for the wrongdoings of some of its adherents.'
However, what is hardly ever highlighted or not spoken about is how there are Muslims standing up against and trying to stop other Muslim organisations using methods that are not in the correct manner, if not correct at all. I help to a certain extent a group in my community to spread the message of Islam sensibly. As the Qur'an implies in many places, use 'Hikmah'. Translated to wisdom, but of which the full meaning is to put something in its right place, as in using a technique in a way that suits the needs of the situation and not think that one system or one method of spreading the message applies. Its not easy for these Muslims though, as the media is in the hands of those who do not fully understand Islam and directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentioanlly (I cannot say what it is as I don't know the hearts of the person(s)) highlight the topics in such a way that it causes Islamaphobia. People have a mental picture painted in their heads about what Islam is not knowing the true facts. And when it is attempted to inform them of the correct views using authentic sources and giving references, the mental picture painted, the view that has been embedded in them makes it difficult for them to accept it. Only those who have not concealed themselves and want to know by looking into the information given, I notice will listen more attentively.

Some of the links posted take things out of context or pose a misunderstanding. On what the intention is of the newspaper, I don't know, but truth is more research is to be done and evidences given on where the religion tells it followers to do such a thing, and not just highlight that because the person or people do this, means this is what the religion teaches. This is something me and Cosmic+Armana were talkin about, the need to be educated on what one follows. I can't speak on behalf of every link as evidences can be given for and against the issues raised, and nor will I be apologetic because as I said, most of it needs to reserached more to clear misunderstandings. Furthermore, its not just Islam who has these problems, its pretty much every faith in our world. But as I said, its all in the hands of the media, and Islam is portrayed so much in the media, that it gives the view to the reader that this is the only religion that causes us so much problems. Its not the case as out of the 1.5billion Muslims in the world its a minute percentage that portray it in a negative light, or rather give ammunition to those who seem to promote the spread of Islamaphobia. Those organisatsions and groups of Muslims who are spreading the message according the Qur'anic and Sunnah ways, are hardly written about. This is something the Muslim community needs to tackle. And inshaAllah, with the help of Allah, the misconceptions will be eradicated.

[Orion]

I do not mean to imply that the articles posted are the whole picture, or even an entirely unbiased part of it. They're there to demonstrate that there are Muslims using their (ie, not necessarily 'the') Islamic faith as a means to more or less 'bully' individuals, communities and even entire countries into changing laws, policies and media so that their faith - as a belief, culture and practice - can be granted an elevated status over other beliefs or ideologies.

You also touch on a point I probably should have stressed more in the OP, too. It is very easy to form your conception of an ideology based on its extreme practitioners - after all, their take on it usually renders the topics in a black-and-white light. By not vocally opposing extremists within their faith, the more 'docile' and majority-forming adherents of that faith are almost implicitly supporting such actions

As a Muslim, how do you feel about some of the specifics I mentioned? The OIC's efforts at reclassifying free speech and religious intolerance, Anjem Choudary and his Sharia-zone-enforcing gangs? Are such actions to be outright condemned, or do you feel there some validity to their seeking such things, perhaps in response to perceived intolerance/discrimination/etc?

[▽]

We have this group called sharia4holland, whose goal is to subject the netherlands to the sharia. If you hear them speak, you'd think they are a bunch of idiots, talking about how freedom makes people unhappy. As history has shown us time and time again, there are people willing to follow nutjobs, so who knows what might come of it. Any attempt to change our constitution requires a majority of two thirds of elected representatives, both before and after an election, to vote in favour of such changes. For now, it won't happen, but that might change in the future, in which case i will leave the theocracy (if that doesn't happen earlier, in case of the financial breakdown of europe). Switzerland or Australia are suitable places to live, if i do leave, they are pretty secular from what i can tell.

[Nelo Angelo]

Well with the OIC article, my opinion would be that they shouldn't want a ban on criticising Islam as a whole, as thier criticism in cases, just means a lack of understanding on certain aspects the person has, This then becomes a duty upon those Muslims who know their deen to help clarify those such things the person has some criticism on. However, the level of that persons criticism surely must have a level or limit. If they go to the extent as to insult or degrade its teachings and followers, then surely that is something not acceptable. If you don't understand something and feel its not for you, fair enough. But some respect should be shown to its adherents who actually understand it better and are following it for a reason. You know? This is probably the main reason the OIC wants to ban the freedom of speech on Islam topics because all they hear, well majority of the time, is things that are insulting. I don't think questions or comments should be prevented, but how those comments are made must have some guidelines so as to not say things that can not only offend but can be a serious crime in the Islamic law, such as slandering the name of God and the Prophet. Allah and His Messenger are very loved by the adherents so if you say something that offends or do something that offends, of course you're gonna get a reaction. So you see what I mean? Wisdom needs to be used.

With the Anjem Choudhary Sharia thing. What he is attempting to do I can understand, as he (well I assume this) understand how Sharia Law is a far superior Law. However, the way to go about doing this must follow Qur'an and Sunnah guidelines. For one, the Sharia is only for Muslims, for those who have submitted that there is no god worthy of worship except Allah and Muhammad (pbuh) is His Messenger. If the person or people have not accepted this, there is no way in a million years they are gna follow the Shariah. That must be established first. The greatest example of this is during the Prophet Muhammads (pbuh) time. When the Pagan Arabs drove them out and killed so many believers, and years later the Muslims had conquered makkah and won the fight for the freedom, and Islam was established in Makkah, the non Muslims, those who did not wish to accept Islam, were allowed to follow their own faiths in their own confines and their law from their scripture would be used on them by the Muslim Caliph, not the Shariah. As they had not submitted to Allah. So, this is what I mean when I say more research and understanding must be done. And I mean this on both the part of the Muslim and non Muslim. And believe me, there are many many organisations who are doing this, teaching Islam correctly to both, but seldom do you hear of them. The media in the west can't make a story of this can they. Its a shame how it is.

[Orion]

Allah and His Messenger are very loved by the adherents so if you say something that offends or do something that offends, of course you're gonna get a reaction.

But by choosing the Islamic faith, these people are implicitly choosing what will offend them, and how they will react to it. Is it right that free speech should be narrowed simply because these people made that choice?

Moreover, the OIC proposes censorship based on what they find insulting. What elevates their position above insult, that others who find Islam (or theoretically any other belief) to be an insulting, dehumanising, etc, in and of itself? Further still, whatever someone says on a sensitive topic is going to offend someone, and many forms of inquiry or criticism (such as religious satire) are made with the knowledge that it will offend, but not with the intent. The way I see it, the OIC hasn't justified why Islam's claim to protection from insult overrides the opinion of those who feel directly insulted by Islam.

as he understand how Sharia Law is a far superior Law.

I'm just going to throw in a quick "Really? Reeeaally?" here, and try and leave it at that since it's tangential.

That must be established first. The greatest example of this is during the Prophet Muhammads (pbuh) time. When the Pagan Arabs drove them out and killed so many believers, and years later the Muslims had conquered makkah and won the fight for the freedom, and Islam was established in Makkah, the non Muslims, those who did not wish to accept Islam, were allowed to follow their own faiths in their own confines and their law from their scripture would be used on them by the Muslim Caliph, not the Shariah. As they had not submitted to Allah.

Why can't more well-known/televised Muslim spokespeople be like this :c

[Nelo Angelo]

But by choosing the Islamic faith, these people are implicitly choosing what will offend them, and how they will react to it. Is it right that free speech should be narrowed simply because these people made that choice?

Moreover, the OIC proposes censorship based on what they find insulting. What elevates their position above insult, that others who find Islam (or theoretically any other belief) to be an insulting, dehumanising, etc, in and of itself? Further still, whatever someone says on a sensitive topic is going to offend someone, and many forms of inquiry or criticism (such as religious satire) are made with the knowledge that it will offend, but not with the intent. The way I see it, the OIC hasn't justified why Islam's claim to protection from insult overrides the opinion of those who feel directly insulted by Islam.

Hm, I know its not your intet, but thats not fair to say bro is it, that because they chose Islam, they must face offense, trying to imply that Islam is something that must be insulted by non Muslims. Yes people will criticise and offend. And that goes for every belief, be it religious or not. But surely respecting others faiths is important. This is a great teaching of Islam itself. That you do not insult anothers belief lest in their ignorance or defence they will insult yours. A great verse of the Qur'an says "Unto you your faith, and unto me mine" (ch109:v6) What I said was use wisdom. Know how to address issues you feel is not right, or you do not know about or don't accept. As the Qur'an says:

“Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance” (ch16:v125)

There is an etiquette about it. There is a way of going about and clearing doubts, or issues you feel are insulting. Firstly you read the information yourself from the sources, second, you ask people of knowledge on the issue and verify again from sources what they tell you, and in the end if you wish to accept you accept, if you wish to reject you reject. If you wish to speak about your conclusions fair enough, but why do it in a way, or word it in a way, you know is going to offend. If you didn't know it was going to offend, then why not curtiously ask? If in the end the person or people still do something that offends, its the Muslims duty to retaliate sensibly. For example when the Prophet (pbuh) sent a letter to the Emporer of Persia I think it was (my memory fails me at this moment) that had the quranic verse (ch3:64) inviting him to Islam. He tore the letter, spat on it and trod on it. What did the Prophet or the Muslims do? Did they send an army to wage war? No. The message was given, he didn't wish to take it or want to learn, and did something that clearly was offensive. Thats it. You move on. And the Prophet (pbuh) did. Letters were sent to Heracles of the Roman Empire and the Negus of Abysinnia, who took the message and accepted becoming Muslims. This is the message to learn.

I'm just going to throw in a quick "Really? Reeeaally?" here, and try and leave it at that since it's tangential.

Lol. Not surprised you'd say that. As I already said. If the person has not submitted that there is a Creator, that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah, and that Muhammad (peace be upon him) is his servant and Final Messenger, then they will not grasp the Shariah. So yeah, best just leave it at that.

Why can't more well-known/televised Muslim spokespeople be like this :c

Thats the thing bro. There is. I can name you a few just from the tip of my tongue at this moment. The most well known at the moment who has done massive endevours in terms of seminars and media work, is Dr Zakir Naik of India. Peace conferences of a gathering of over a million people, majority non muslims has been conducted for about 5-6 years. He has travelled in many countries giving talks. Theres loads here in the UK. Abu Uthama, Murtaza Khan, in the US you have Yasir Qadhi, Nouman Ali, Dr Bilal Phillips, Yusuf Estes, Nasir Jangda. In saudi Arabia, Assim al Hakim, Mamdouh Mohammad, theres loads there tbh. In Australia, theres Abdul Bary Yahya, Brother Bilal Assad. In Africa, Yasir Fazagha, Omar Ragaeh, Yusuf Idris. In China, Hussain Yee. The list would be endless if I could remember and look it up. And they all are well known appearing on television (prominently on Peace TV) But you only haven't heard of them because the media doesn't tell you about them. Thats the thing bro, the media is in the hands of those who pick and choose what will be newsworthy for them. The stories they know will catch attention and make people see Islam in a negative light. Its a shame, and these are big obstacles for these brothers and sheikhs who are doing their utmost to spread the message and teachings in the Qur'anic and SUnnah way. And they don't give up MashaAllah. For example with Dr Zakir Naik. The Home Secretary here banned him from coming cz apparently he is a 'terrorist' (surprise surprise) but it didn't stop him. Oxford Universtiy by the grace of God allowed him to give a talk via satellite. So you see there are these kind of people out there, but that obstacle has been painted there by the media, and when the evidence is given of the truth, they don't want to listen. InshaAllah their perserverance is successful.

[Orion]

Hm, I know its not your intet, but thats not fair to say bro is it, that because they chose Islam, they must face offense,

No, that's not what I said at all. What I said was that people choosing a faith (or any system of beliefs/ideals) implicitly also choose that some things will offend them. That doesn't mean they will get offended, just that particular things - if and when they come up - would offend them. The problem is that there are Muslims getting offended at the truth being expressed, and want it criminalised as hate speech of some variety.

trying to imply that Islam is something that must be insulted by non Muslims.

Pft, no. Although I do believe there are Muslims (not Islam as a whole) who deserve insult, but they just happen to be Muslims, not because that's what they are.

But surely respecting others faiths is important.

Not necessarily. Respecting people's right to a belief, I think we can agree, is of paramount importance. Faiths, beliefs and ideologies, however, do not just have a free ride to respect granted to them. There are things worth respecting in any system that can lead people to do good, but that doesn't mean respect should be automatic, especially in the face of some negative aspects of such a faith, or what has been done (even incorrectly) in the name of such a faith.

If you wish to speak about your conclusions fair enough, but why do it in a way, or word it in a way, you know is going to offend.

Becomes some - myself included - feel freedom of speech is worth people getting offended. Hell, something doesn't even have to be expressed offensively for someone to take offence to it. We know that religious people - any sort of person with a belief, really - can be offended by even the most calm and methodical criticism of that belief. The way I see it, some of these organisations aren't asking that offensively-expressed opinions be censored, they're asking that offensive opinions be censored, and there is a very key difference between the two.

Thats the thing bro, the media is in the hands of those who pick and choose what will be newsworthy for them. The stories they know will catch attention and make people see Islam in a negative light.

I don't necessarily think it's for the sake of painting Islam negatively, but I do think that's a result of a system designed to validate the military-industrial complex. What better way to justify the wars in the Middle East, for example, then to highlight outspoken Muslims as crazy, evil, etc. But I think there's two sides to here, and there is genuine fault on the Muslim side of things, but not because they're Muslim, or even because they're Arab in/from that region. The whole area's been so regularly in conflict that many probably can't help but see violence as normal or necessary, even as a logical extension of Muslim faith they were brought into or adopted. Not to say being Arab will make you violent, but the violence in the region will of course impact how you perceive violence.

[▽]

Well with the OIC article, my opinion would be that they shouldn't want a ban on criticising Islam as a whole, as thier criticism in cases, just means a lack of understanding on certain aspects the person has, This then becomes a duty upon those Muslims who know their deen to help clarify those such things the person has some criticism on. However, the level of that persons criticism surely must have a level or limit. If they go to the extent as to insult or degrade its teachings and followers, then surely that is something not acceptable. If you don't understand something and feel its not for you, fair enough. But some respect should be shown to its adherents who actually understand it better and are following it for a reason. You know? This is probably the main reason the OIC wants to ban the freedom of speech on Islam topics because all they hear, well majority of the time, is things that are insulting. I don't think questions or comments should be prevented, but how those comments are made must have some guidelines so as to not say things that can not only offend but can be a serious crime in the Islamic law, such as slandering the name of God and the Prophet. Allah and His Messenger are very loved by the adherents so if you say something that offends or do something that offends, of course you're gonna get a reaction. So you see what I mean? Wisdom needs to be used.

I would say that an omnipotent deity such as yours would be perfectly able to defend himself. After all, smiting people that deny his existence would be a perfect way to set an example. The problem with wityh religion is questioning the holy book and some of the practices coming from it is often deemed offensive. And mocking religion, which is simply a means of criticism delivered in an entertaining way, is even worse according to adherents. In a secular society, free speech should go before religion, as free speech is the only way to oppose censorship and totalitarian behaviour.

With the Anjem Choudhary Sharia thing. What he is attempting to do I can understand, as he (well I assume this) understand how Sharia Law is a far superior Law. However, the way to go about doing this must follow Qur'an and Sunnah guidelines. For one, the Sharia is only for Muslims, for those who have submitted that there is no god worthy of worship except Allah and Muhammad (pbuh) is His Messenger. If the person or people have not accepted this, there is no way in a million years they are gna follow the Shariah. That must be established first. The greatest example of this is during the Prophet Muhammads (pbuh) time. When the Pagan Arabs drove them out and killed so many believers, and years later the Muslims had conquered makkah and won the fight for the freedom, and Islam was established in Makkah, the non Muslims, those who did not wish to accept Islam, were allowed to follow their own faiths in their own confines and their law from their scripture would be used on them by the Muslim Caliph, not the Shariah. As they had not submitted to Allah. So, this is what I mean when I say more research and understanding must be done. And I mean this on both the part of the Muslim and non Muslim. And believe me, there are many many organisations who are doing this, teaching Islam correctly to both, but seldom do you hear of them. The media in the west can't make a story of this can they. Its a shame how it is.

Sharia is a problem simply because we already have a legal system. Think of how much of a hassle when two justice systems would co-exist. Would every case be brought before two different courts, a sharia and a regular court. Or would one of the parties involved choose which court hould judge. Quite simply, i don't see it work, besides the fact that the sharia is based on a book written by tribes that lived in a completely different world from ours.

[Cosmic+Amarna]

Sharia is a problem simply because we already have a legal system. Think of how much of a hassle when two justice systems would co-exist. Would every case be brought before two different courts, a sharia and a regular court. Or would one of the parties involved choose which court hould judge. Quite simply, i don't see it work, besides the fact that the sharia is based on a book written by tribes that lived in a completely different world from ours.

Sharia would be for the Muslims, if it was implemented as it should correctly, NonMuslims would not adhere to the Sharia since they are not Muslim. And to say that what some people said/discussed amongst their tribe hundreds of years ago is completely irrelevant to present life is rather imprudent. Are there things that we know now that we did not back then, of course but there are some things that do not cease with time and progression. It really is not correct or accurate to say that just because it happened a long time ago, it is from a completely different world than our current. Like I said, there are things that we know now that we didn't know then and that we know that some things may not be true or different than claimed. But there are things that are relevant, and probably will be so long as we are here.

[Nelo Angelo]

No, that's not what I said at all. What I said was that people choosing a faith (or any system of beliefs/ideals) implicitly also choose that some things will offend them. That doesn't mean they will get offended, just that particular things - if and when they come up - would offend them. The problem is that there are Muslims getting offended at the truth being expressed, and want it criminalised as hate speech of some variety.

Hm, but that’s the thing isn’t it. What that person may think is the truth being expressed may not be the truth, unless of course evidence is brought forth with authenticity. As majority of the time, I won’t say every cuz there very well maybe truths in some cases for some religions, the ‘truth’ that is being expressed by those who say that it is isn’t truth, could just be their misunderstanding, misconceptions, or even a form of them purposely wanting to malign the belief, this is why it can offend. All I said was it would be wise to bring forth the claims or comments to those who know their religion, I’ll be specific to Islam, and question them to get an understanding, and then come to ones own conclusion. They may or may not have an intention to offend, that’s fair enough, and if you want to express it, fair enough, but to speak without understanding or without evidences is obviously going to be a lot more offensive. And as I said anyways, the Muslim must go about in the correct ways to teach them and clear that misconception. It all depends on the person’s character as well on how they react. Some are far more stern when they here these false assumptions or mistakes being spoken about, whilst others stay softly spoken and discuss it over a cup of tea.

Not necessarily. Respecting people's right to a belief, I think we can agree, is of paramount importance. Faiths, beliefs and ideologies, however, do not just have a free ride to respect granted to them. There are things worth respecting in any system that can lead people to do good, but that doesn't mean respect should be automatic, especially in the face of some negative aspects of such a faith, or what has been done (even incorrectly) in the name of such a faith.

Hm, that’s probably a better way of putting it actually yeah. Cool bro.

Becomes some - myself included - feel freedom of speech is worth people getting offended. Hell, something doesn't even have to be expressed offensively for someone to take offence to it. We know that religious people - any sort of person with a belief, really - can be offended by even the most calm and methodical criticism of that belief. The way I see it, some of these organisations aren't asking that offensively-expressed opinions be censored, they're asking that offensive opinions be censored, and there is a very key difference between the two.

Yeah that’s true as I said, some don’t mean to offend and express it knowing that it could offend. But there is the case of some using freedom of speech to offend another’s belief system. The EDL here in Britain do it all the time. I’ve heard it directly with my own ears. No evidence or reference is given to what they say, yet they express falsehood to the masses causing offense. That’s why my opinion is there should be a limit or a guideline in place to stop those kind of things happening.

I don't necessarily think it's for the sake of painting Islam negatively, but I do think that's a result of a system designed to validate the military-industrial complex. What better way to justify the wars in the Middle East, for example, then to highlight outspoken Muslims as crazy, evil, etc. But I think there's two sides to here, and there is genuine fault on the Muslim side of things, but not because they're Muslim, or even because they're Arab in/from that region. The whole area's been so regularly in conflict that many probably can't help but see violence as normal or necessary, even as a logical extension of Muslim faith they were brought into or adopted. Not to say being Arab will make you violent, but the violence in the region will of course impact how you perceive violence.

Yeah ok that’s fair enough. But I do believe the media is being biased in regards on how they portray Islam to the masses. All the hard and good works of charity work, peace conferences, community conformity and peace work that many organisations and Muslim speakers do is hardly ever spoken about. The true message of Islam that is being done through hard work and effort isn’t expressed in the newspapers in the west. Muslim publications do their best to tell the world the true message. Those speakers I mentioned to you earlier, you probably haven’t heard of any of them although they have been around for decades and decades, with many of them being reverts and doing so much community work in their local areas and cities. So you can see why I say the media only picks and chooses what it wants to portray to be ‘newsworthy’ and this directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally, spreads Islamaphobia. Nevertheless, one of my favourite verses of the Qur’an comes to mind.

“They plan and plot, but Allah too plans. And the best of planners is Allah.”

As with all these mischief, yet Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. SubhanAllah.

▽[/FONT];5840129]I would say that an omnipotent deity such as yours would be perfectly able to defend himself. After all, smiting people that deny his existence would be a perfect way to set an example. The problem with wityh religion is questioning the holy book and some of the practices coming from it is often deemed offensive. And mocking religion, which is simply a means of criticism delivered in an entertaining way, is even worse according to adherents. In a secular society, free speech should go before religion, as free speech is the only way to oppose censorship and totalitarian behaviour.

Ah don’t worry bro. The judgement of Allah will be done when its the time. All I can say on my part is I’m just preparing for that day. And I personally don’t mind anyone questioning or criticising anything of Islam, as I love clearing up these misconceptions, its why I made the Q&A thread :-)

▽[/FONT];5840129]Sharia is a problem simply because we already have a legal system. Think of how much of a hassle when two justice systems would co-exist. Would every case be brought before two different courts, a sharia and a regular court. Or would one of the parties involved choose which court hould judge. Quite simply, i don't see it work, besides the fact that the sharia is based on a book written by tribes that lived in a completely different world from ours.

I already answered that question, and Cosmic+Armana gave a good reply as he understood what I said.

[▽]

Sharia would be for the Muslims, if it was implemented as it should correctly, NonMuslims would not adhere to the Sharia since they are not Muslim. And to say that what some people said/discussed amongst their tribe hundreds of years ago is completely irrelevant to present life is rather imprudent. Are there things that we know now that we did not back then, of course but there are some things that do not cease with time and progression. It really is not correct or accurate to say that just because it happened a long time ago, it is from a completely different world than our current. Like I said, there are things that we know now that we didn't know then and that we know that some things may not be true or different than claimed. But there are things that are relevant, and probably will be so long as we are here.

It still is problematic in cases where both muslim and non-muslim parties are involved, that was the scenario i was hinting at. In such cases, would two courts judge? Would there be a conversation which court to choose? Two justice systems existing parallel would weaken the the third pillar from the trias politica considerably imho. As for basing law on an ancient book, i think that, although some things are still valid (stealing, murder rape etc.), there are also things that have no place in a modern society (condemning homosexuality and disbelief and the barbaric punishments to be implemented). All this without considering that ancient books are rather difficult to source check, which is rather important in any field.

Ah don’t worry bro. The judgement of Allah will be done when its the time. All I can say on my part is I’m just preparing for that day. And I personally don’t mind anyone questioning or criticising anything of Islam, as I love clearing up these misconceptions, its why I made the Q&A thread :-)

I understand that moderate muslims don't show that reflex-like behaviour i sketched. It's the fundamentalists which are present in the west, which are a potential threat. They, of all adherents, would be the ones with the most rock-solid belief, yet they want to change society thorugh force. And though free speech goes deep imho, a call to violence and the abolition of the very rights they practice (along with the general population) should be vehemently opposed.

I already answered that question, and Cosmic+Armana gave a good reply as he understood what I said.

See my reply to cosmic, above.

[Cosmic+Amarna]

It still is problematic in cases where both muslim and non-muslim parties are involved, that was the scenario i was hinting at. In such cases, would two courts judge? Would there be a conversation which court to choose? Two justice systems existing parallel would weaken the the third pillar from the trias politica considerably imho. As for basing law on an ancient book, i think that, although some things are still valid (stealing, murder rape etc.), there are also things that have no place in a modern society (condemning homosexuality and disbelief and the barbaric punishments to be implemented). All this without considering that ancient books are rather difficult to source check, which is rather important in any field.

I understand what you are saying about Sharia and can agree that it would become slightly complicating with parallel courts, one overriding the other, situations when a Muslim and non Muslim are involved, etc. I can't answer that on behalf of Islam or the legal system, since I am not fully knowledgeable in those regards and idk how it would work. I was simply just saying that Sharia law is for those who submit and become Muslim, since over here in the US some people are all like 'omg sharia law!!!' when it wouldn't affect them because they are not Muslim.

Ah yes, that is a respectable answer as opposed to 'it's from a different world'. I agree with you that some of those things such as condemning homosexuals, disbelievers, and practicing barbaric punishment should not exist, but that really could happen, has happened, and will happen without religion. There's no denying that religion has influenced and affecting those things but some of that negative bs truly occurs without religion. I'm not defending when a religion does that bs, or when any of it''s members either.

And as for source checking ancient texts, I can't really argue since I agree to a degree, but that then would hold true for ALL texts written before, let's say, the 8th century. A lot of our method/basis of thinking comes from the ancient Greeks, but if it is rather difficult to source check ancient text, then why do we/why should we believe what was written/find it to be credible? I think that things like the Bible have been obviously manipulated and edited, but certainly that is not true for all ancient texts and this is sometimes evident.