Yes, I'm a bigot because I thought the content of a particular book was very interesting and thought-provoking, whereas you did not. How shameful of me...
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! never said so, or believed in it. its a projection your brain has tricked you. i would prefer nothing more then to live the rest of my life jerking of and watching TV. i dont believe in superior or inferior race. and what made you think the NAZIS are my mentors? they killed my entire family! you actually think before you type nonsense?
We were assuming that, thanks. The question was: are these judges religious officials, clerics, etc, under sharia law as practiced ? “ History is I'm sure fascinating, The question was: is that how sharia judges are chosen now, so that every establishment of sharia law involves the establishment of democratic elections for this parlaiment you refer to ? Because I can't find a single reference to any sharia judge standing for election anywhere. Do you have an example ? “ We have not yet established the existence of a single democratic and sharia country. Meanwhile, our examples of sharia law in practice are such as the Taliban, Saudi Arabia, etc.
Holy crap! iceaura and I are on the same page on this one. It must be a cold day in hell. We're talking about religious law sprinkled with whatever local cultural law happens to be the standard for that area being able to supercede the secular law, or common law. And whenever these come into conflict, the former seems to trump the latter, under Sharia. You can never have an effective, open society under those parameters.
Considering that sharia is a synthesis of Islamic, Jewish, Arab, Bedouin, Greek, Christian and Romans laws and has been relatively stagnant since the Caliphate went under, that is hardly surprising. Many of the "punishments" in sharia for example were commonplace in the west (, were in fact much worse) at the time they were written and are not present in the Quran. Like stoning.
The difference is the West evolved ... it became more liberal, thanks a largely to the Enlightenment, a movement whose ideals are mostly rejected in the Islamic world.
Possibly because many have been bombed back into the stone age. The Enlightenment that created artificial nation states, exploited resources, toppled democracies and enabled dictators.
None of that began, or even took hold, with the Enlightenment. The Enlightnment that did not of itself prevent the continuation of past abuses, and in fact lent greater capability to them (as it did to all human action) but did provide the means for such prevention, should anyone wish to employ them - the possiblity of actual democracy in a civilization capable of defending itself from tyrants, for example. Among those means: the beginnings of a comprehension of the world, answerable to events and to reason rather than to arbitrary authority.
I question the sincerity of the people who voted for Sharia since NONE live in a country WITH Sharia. Thought that would be worth mentioning.
As I said, anyone who is elected to that position. You wont find a single reference in English because the anti-Islamists have not ttranslated them and the Muslim countries usually speak Arabic or Urdu or whatever. Its a simple "democractic" process, with people choosing the person they think is most capable. And then we can say that "democratic" countries are not democratic either but lean towards dictatorships or whatever. If you want to be nitpicky ofcourse. :shrug:
Oh you mean the enlightenment which took place exactly because of the Muslim world Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And once again, that sort of thinking came to the fore through the Muslims and their thinking and what they did together with the Christians and Jews who lived with them. It was because of the Muslim Empire and its connections with Europe that that kind of thinking was able to penetrate through and ultimately lead to "the holiest of holy" events Westerners like to refer to as "The Enlightenment" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ooh, thread's a sticky now. That brings me to another point: why? Who here knows about the Sharia as laid out in the Quran? And who here knows about Sharia only through some actions of some brutal regimes? And which of those do we want to compare with what kind fo Democracy?
We are assuming that, yes, thank you. The question is whether these judges - the ones "elected" in some as yet unspecified manner that is claimed without evidence to resemble democracy - are religious officials, clerics and the like, in fact. So an actual example of a sharia judge standing for election and being voted into office by the citizenry of a country should be very easy for you to supply. Because you speak English, after all, and are not anti-Islamist as is every single one of the English-speaking intellectuals and journalists and essayists and so forth. Where by "coming to the fore" you apparently mean "being adopted by the Western world" - since the enlightenment had, by that account, already occurred in the Islamic world.
In sharia, the jurists or law makers are separate from the clerics or religious scholars. Hence you rarely see any Islamic scholars making political statements,, though nowadays they feel increasingly compelled to.
So in our search for a way to meld sharia law and democracy - something that no one seems to have been able to actually do, yet, but which we are exploring as a possibility - we could in theory set up a system in which: a country is governed by sharia law the Christians have representation among the sharia judges - people who take their case to the sharia court in significantly Christian communities could find themselves facing a Christian judge, with probability proportional to the electorate. And the local interpretation of sharia law invoked by that Christian judge would be adapted to the local community and circumstances of that country - regarding, say, adultery.
What western democracy? The U.S. is a republic with democratic principles and I like it as founded...
