Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Why Sharia Law must be Opposed

God's Afro

New member
Sharia law is the instrument by which Political Islam seeks to control the Muslim world. Whilst the Sharia may have been inspired by the Holy Quran, it has developed and evolved through time and through the efforts of men. The Sharia should be open to analysis, research and criticism like any other system of law, practice and belief. Its divine inspiration should no more shield it from criticism than Christianity should have been spared criticism for burning heretics or massacring unbelievers. The more pernicious interpretations of the Sharia today fall far short of the minimum standards of justice widely demanded by the international community and by Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

The Sharia should be opposed for its imposition of theocracy over democracy, its abuse of human rights, its institutionalized discrimination, its denial of human dignity and individual autonomy, its punishment of alternative lifestyle choices, and for the severity of its punishments.

In the west, in countries that have a sizable Muslim population, there have been calls for the Sharia to be adopted for the Muslim community. These calls should be vigorously opposed; the Sharia conflicts with many basic human values, such as equality before the law, that punishments should be commensurate with the crime, and that the law must be based on the will of the people. The Sharia as it developed in the first few centuries of Islam incorporated many pre-Islamic Middle-Eastern misogynist and tribal customs and traditions. The Sharia was developed not only from the Holy Quran but incorporates legal principles from other sects. We may ask how a law whose elements were first laid down over 1,000 years ago can possibly be relevant in the 21st century. The Sharia reflects the social and economic conditions at the time of the Abbasids and has become further and further out of touch with later social, economic, technological, cultural and moral developments. The principles of the Sharia are inimical to moral progress, humanity and civilized values.

The problem for all of us is how to oppose the violations of human rights inherent in the Sharia without being accused of blasphemy or apostasy. We would suggest that the answer lies in a return to the Five Pillars of Islam.

For non-Muslims who want to help, the problem is how to avoid charges of cultural imperialism, neocolonialism and racism, or of failing to respect “the other”. But cultural relativism is not the answer. In India, each religion has its own social laws. Muslim women do not enjoy the same rights as Hindu women. Why not? Justice cries out for secularism. One law for all – equality before the law – for Muslims and non-Muslims, for men and women alike, must be the answer.

Many of the arguments for permitting each religion or culture to determine its own laws are based on a misunderstanding of the nature of human rights. Human rights as defined in the UDHR are vested in the individual, not the group. As soon as rights are accorded to a group rather than to individuals, conflict becomes possible not only between one group and another, but between the group and its own members. Any group that denies the right of its members to leave is in contravention of one of the most fundamental principles of human rights. Yet clearly, one of the reasons for the growth of Islam over the past century has been that becoming a Muslim is a one-way street. Whether by birth or conversion (historically likely to have been a forced conversion) once you are a Muslim the only way out, under the Sharia, is death.

When Political Islam really does advocate jihad to achieve world domination, then anyone deeply concerned with humanity and human rights will be critical. Of all the existing ideologies, Political Islam remains the greatest danger to humanity. Political Islam has been neither tamed nor moderated by progressive forces. It has the power to inspire the terrorist mind, and, through its ties to oil-rich states, the funds to pursue its plans.

Islamic apologists often claim that many so-called violations of human rights are based on a misreading of the Holy Quran and will quote this or that sura in its defense. But the arguments against Political Islam are not against the holy texts but against the Sharia as it is practiced today in Islamic states. We are told that Islam is a religion of peace and that the struggle, jihad, to impose Islam by conquest is not to be taken literally. But for Political Islam it is. Ask the suicide bombers. The only possible response to the charge of misunderstanding or misreading Islam is to look at the reality of what is happening in those countries such as Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and northern Nigeria where the Sharia now holds sway.

The world is a battleground of social movements and ideas. It took people in the west over 400 years of often-bloody struggle to gain the right to criticize Christianity. Even now, that right is still not fully recognized. In Britain, for example, there is still a law against blasphemy, and many Islamic clerics have argued that it should be extended to cover Islam as well. It should be scrapped. Once we are prevented from expressing our point of view in the market place of ideas we will be heading back to the Dark Ages.

We must recognize that we now live in a global community. Society is far larger, more diverse and far more complex than the primitive tribal society of 7th century Arabia that gave birth to Islam. It is time to renounce the idea that anyone should be ruled exclusively by the Sharia. More than ever before, people need a secular state that respects freedom of religion, and freedom from religion for those that have none, and human rights founded on the principle that power belongs to the people. This means that we must reject the claims of the Islamists that sovereignty belongs exclusively to Allah – by which they mean His representatives, that is, themselves. Indeed it demands that the very concept of an Islamic state be challenged. The imposition of Sharia law for political ends must be opposed.

What is needed is nothing less than the secularization of Islamic society, and the establishment of the idea that individual conscience must be our guide and the judge of personal, private conduct. But secularization cannot be imposed from outside by force. Attempts by America and its allies to impose democracy and human rights on the Islamic world will rightly be resisted as neocolonialism and will simply drive more and more Muslims into the arms of the extremists. The onus is on us to promote the ideals of personal freedom, progress and change from within Muslim society, with help from those in the rest of the world who share our ideals and hopes for the future.

We call on all Muslims and all who value freedom, democracy and human rights to support our campaign: NO to Political Islam, YES to Human Rights.

http://www.ntpi.org/html/whyoppose.html

Yes, Shariah law must be opposed. It is not truly based on religious principles, but on cultural values.
 
You cannot separate Islam from the Shariah law, since Islam is more of a social/practical religion than a spiritual one (though there are branches like Baha'is that adopt a mystical/spiritualist approach to Islam, but then again, these would not be considered as Muslims in the first place). There's no dichotomy between religion and politics in Islam.

The above article is written by people who obviously have not the slightest shred of information about what they're talking about. No Muslim would "value freedom, democracy and human rights to support our campaign: NO to Political Islam, YES to Human Rights". There is no such thing as "political Islam" and "religious Islam" ... it's a package .. either take it or leave it.

The process of breaking free from religious norms, while it was feasible to Christian communities (though it took centuries) is a quasi-impossibility when talking about Islam.
 
So do you think Western countries should adopt Sharia Law to accommodate the Muslims who have moved there? I was reading a debate about this on another forum and was surprised to find that there are people OK with it. I hope it never happens in the US, I can't get my mind around the idea of having separate laws for people of different religions.
 
This is a misconception deliberately marketed by Muslim activists to water down the idea of the Shariah, and make it seem more acceptable to non-Muslims. In truth, the Sharia not only concerns Muslims, but sets laws for Dhimmis to abide by. Dhimmis are non-muslim citizens of the Islamic state, who are considered as second class citizens, and are deprived from a lot of rights given to Muslims. En résumé, the Shariha is an Islamic state's constitution which is to be carried out literally.

Any country who accepts Sharia laws in the name of protecting the right of minorities is walking the politially correct path to Dhimmitude.
 
Wikipedia said:
Legal and social status

Dhimmis were subject to legal and social inferiority, and discrimination was permanent, necessary, and "inherent in the system and institutionalized in law and practice," due to the fact that Dhimmis were not allowed to testify against a Muslim in court. Dhimmis were often subject to violence and crimes committed by Muslims.

...
 
We gotta be really, really careful that Sharia Law doesn't replace the US Constitution. It could happen any day now - a group of thugs threatens a nation, armed with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, a nation of hundreds of millions, and we change our belief system overnight. I hope that does not happen.

I am so scared of Sharia law. Please protect me, I'm an American; helpless and cowardly to the very end. Don't let the terrorists get me.
 
They can do it by moving in, taking over, getting their interests as a minority group consistently put ahead of what is the majority rule now. Think it can't happen? Look what is happening with the illegal Mexican immigrants? That ought to be an interesting clash - machismo vs Sharia Law.
 
We gotta be really, really careful that Sharia Law doesn't replace the US Constitution. It could happen any day now - a group of thugs threatens a nation, armed with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, a nation of hundreds of millions, and we change our belief system overnight. I hope that does not happen.

I am so scared of Sharia law. Please protect me, I'm an American; helpless and cowardly to the very end. Don't let the terrorists get me.

LOL SARKISM FUNY LOL !

IF MOR AMERICAN LIEK U WE LIVE IN PARADISE ... CRACK .. ORGIES .. AND THE BEATLES.

LOL GOOD SARKISM KEEP IT UP LOL.
 
They can do it by moving in, taking over, getting their interests as a minority group consistently put ahead of what is the majority rule now. Think it can't happen? Look what is happening with the illegal Mexican immigrants? That ought to be an interesting clash - machismo vs Sharia Law.
Unless the muslims ever managed to convert them and THEN hoo brother would we be fucked.

Long shot, tho'.
 
LOL SARKISM FUNY LOL !

IF MOR AMERICAN LIEK U WE LIVE IN PARADISE ... CRACK .. ORGIES .. AND THE BEATLES.

LOL GOOD SARKISM KEEP IT UP LOL.

You are slightly amusing when nothing else is interesting; however, do not - and I repeat this, and emphasize it with capital letters, so you understand the importance - DO NOT disrespect the BEATLES.
 
LETITBEOVER.jpg
 
The hypocrisy of the average Beatle fan is demonstrated with much of the hatred they display whenever they think someone is belittling their favourite band. They insist that the Beatles are all about "peace" and "love" (give me a fucking break, they're just a rock and roll band), yet in the next sentence they threaten you with death. Incredible !
 
I'll love the Beatles forever but I never once bought into the notion that they were all about peace & love and when you get right down to it Lennon was really quite a prick.
 
The hypocrisy of the average Beatle fan is demonstrated with much of the hatred they display whenever they think someone is belittling their favourite band. They insist that the Beatles are all about "peace" and "love" (give me a fucking break, they're just a rock and roll band), yet in the next sentence they threaten you with death. Incredible !

A. I am not an average fan of the Beatles.
B. They were a band. Now they are a memory of good times.
C. I never insisted the Beatles were about peace and love.
D. I did not threaten you with death.

I harm no one. It is against one of my core beliefs. However, I also believe that someone out there needs to inflict damage on someone else and you are someone who is always out looking to incite anger in persons you feel are unable to harm you. That is one of the little surprises of life - misreading the dark nature of other beings. I was just looking out for you. Not because I wish you love or peace but because the person that you piss off will have to work that karma off in the next life. Now, get your shit straight.
 
A. I am not an average fan of the Beatles.
B. They were a band. Now they are a memory of good times.
C. I never insisted the Beatles were about peace and love.
D. I did not threaten you with death.

I harm no one. It is against one of my core beliefs. However, I also believe that someone out there needs to inflict damage on someone else and you are someone who is always out looking to incite anger in persons you feel are unable to harm you. That is one of the little surprises of life - misreading the dark nature of other beings. I was just looking out for you. Not because I wish you love or peace but because the person that you piss off will have to work that karma off in the next life. Now, get your shit straight.

I did not address the post above to you. Why did you feel targeted by it ?
 
Marquis De Sade : The hypocrisy of the average Beatle fan is demonstrated with much of the hatred they display whenever they think someone is belittling their favourite band. They insist that the Beatles are all about "peace" and "love" (give me a fucking break, they're just a rock and roll band), yet in the next sentence they threaten you with death. Incredible !

eloisel : Don't you dare call me a hypocrite you ignorant bitch ! I will, in retaliation to your abhorrent post full of falsifications, go on the defensive, and shower you with a hail of philosophical babble about extremely important matters such as the castration of baby pigs in Madagascar, and the effect of your posts on TrollKingdom on my transcendentalist views. I will also write stuff about Karma and next life, because it is assumed that everyone who talks about Karma and the next life is a deep individual who knows what he/she is talking about.

Marquis De Sade : Mais pourquoi tu t'es sentie visée, ma chère ?

eloisel : Good question. I wonder what prompted me into replying to your post considering the fact that it was specifically addressed to hypocrites and average Beatle fans.

Marquis De Sade : Could it be because you are one ?

eloisel : no wai.

Marquis De Sade : I believe you, compadre. But next time you're in the mall and someone screams "YOU FUCKING IDIOT", don't reply, because you will be proving that you are a fucking idiot by doing so.

eloisel : I'll remember that ;).

Marquis De Sade : Cheers.

eloisel : :).
 
I was just looking out for you. Not because I wish you love or peace but because the person that you piss off will have to work that karma off in the next life. Now, get your shit straight.

I don't often do this, but PLEASE go read about phoolan devi, or the short version in the spamcapital thread...around page 99 to get a better understanding of karma.
karma is the biggest source of human rights abuse known to planet earth, its like the quintessential perversion of liberty.
It not only allows, but justifies the en-mass abuse of children, women and the vunerable.....all in the name of 'karma'
While pple in the west throw the term around like a fluffy cute soft toy, billions suffer the most perverse abuse ever, under the ideology of karma.

Anyone in their right mind who knows of the day to day suffering inflicted by this asp, would never use it as the' innocent...get what u give' mantra.
 
Top